War Is Hell

292 thoughts on “War Is Hell”

1. “In the United States, right now, women have preferential treatment – by law .” It’s true. It’s also true that you’ll pay a price for telling this particular truth. So, you need/deserve allies. I’m passing this post along to women who are on your side.

   1. I’m aware of this, but sometimes — to quote the much maligned Christopher Marlowe — you must tell the truth even if you have to die for it. I’ve seen what the system does to boys and men.

      This is my hill. If I must die on it, so be it.

2. wow.

   Well said.

   I actually googled “war on women” It turns out to be overwhelmingly political and always democrat against republican.

3. Pingback: Classical Values » I’ve Completely Lost My Mind

4. Amen, Sister Sarah!

   Of course, I’m an evil male so what do I know. [Wink]

5. Thank you for saying this.

   The insanity of being against one’s own husbands and sons is incomprehensible to me. Not to mention being in awe of body parts.

   “This is my hill. If I must die on it, so be it.”
   It is not a bad hill to die on.

6. ::applauds and cheers::

   As the wife of a wonderful man, as the mother of a fine, stalwart son, I salute you! As the mother of a promising daughter, I pray to God she finds someone worthy of her, and not one of these emasculated, namby pamby girly boys that the public educations system seems to be churning out.

   Sign me up. I’m on the hill, and ready to fight!

7. Yeah, what you said.

8. Pingback: War On Women? No — It’s A War On Men | Paul M. Jones

9. Thank you! You said what I have been thinking for a while. Who the heck is behind this drive to turn men into namby-pambys? I like being a woman and want men to be men.

10. I love your post. Everyone should vote Libertarian if they love freedom. http://votebetsy.com/issues/ Please donate.

11. Well said.

12. Exceptionally well said. And far, far more diplomatically than I would have said it. . .

13. Ditto!

14. “WHEN did equality before the law the stop being the goal? ”

    That’s the scariest part right there. Gender and race class and all that are always in imbalance, but the idea behind liberty being universal is something that has allowed humankind to transcend. I get nervous when it seems as if we’re falling backwards, and this essay is way too uncommon.

15. Pingback: The Battle is Joined: Sarah Hoyt chooses to defend Men | Air & Space
16. Pingback: Transterrestrial Musings - The Left’s Long-Time War On Women

17. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I keep hearing this phrase “War on Women” and wonder exactly who is waging this war and exactly who the casualties are. Since when did paying for your own contraception make you a victim? Since when did respecting the religious beliefs of others make you an oppressor? I don’t need someone coddling me because I am some delicate flower. I’ve always competed in school and in the working world based on my intellect, ambition and abilities. To give me some type of preference is to insult me by indicating that I can’t compete without help and THAT is a war on women.

    1. First of all the war on women uses a secondary definition of war, “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism” (1). Second of all while the contraception coverage issue is a genuine one there are many other issues which make the comparison to a war justifiable. Like if you want to get an abortion you have to let a doctor essentially rape you with a medical probe (2), if you miscarry your child you are charged with murder (3), or changing the name of defendants to accusers in rape, stalking, and domestic violence cases (4). The “war on women” on the part of the republican party is nothing new. What we have here is a derivation of a straw man argument. Where you point to one part of a very broad issue, which does not quite fit the original issue, as a reason that the entire issue is wrong. Like saying that all of astronomy is wrong because we can’t see black holes.

       (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war
       (2) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/21/msnbcs_krystal_ball_virginia_abortion_law_is_rape.html
       (3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
       (4) http://www.change.org/petitions/rape-victims-are-not-accusers

       1. Please do explain to me how the Republican Party is making war on women, I’d really like a more coherent explanation than presented herein.

          as for the “Changing name of defendants to accusers in rape etc.”

          I do not think that word means what you think it means.

          First, the defendant is the person who is accused, not the victim. Second as a journalist, we use the term accuser pretty liberally when someone has yet to be convicted. There’s this other little term “libel” if we call someone a rape victim before the accused (see how that works) has been convicted, and then they are acquitted, we can be sued for libel. We don’t like being sued for libel. It destroys our reputation, even if we win, it costs money to defend and we usually get fired as soon as the trial is over, win, lose or draw. So we have to use “accuser,” or “alleged victim.”

          See there’s this other little term you seem to be unfamiliar with, it’s called “innocent until proven guilty” yes even accused (there’s that word again) rapists are innocent until a jury says they aren’t. That’s in that last little term you seem to be unfamiliar with “The Constitution of the United States of America.”

          1. Yeah I meant victim, I thought that sounded kind of odd in my head.

             I am fully aware of innocent until proven guilty, how you think this justifies changing terminology for the victim of a violent crime which implies that the victim is committing libel escapes me though. I am also aware that rapes are significantly under reported in the United states, estimated at 60% (1), a number which is not likely to be helped by creating a greater stigma for the victims who report the crimes.

             While I familiar with “The Constitution of the United States of America.” I am not familiar with the portion of it which pertains to when something should be considered a war in the secondary definition of the word (2). I am also unfamiliar with the part of it which pertains to a different terminology for the victim of a specific violent crime (2).

             (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
             (2) http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

             1. I go back to my previous comment to you. Use primary sources. Second, get real. One state rep putting forth a bill on a state level, a bill that has little chance of passing, does not presage a wholesale attempt by the Republicans to do anything.

                Be as outraged as you like. Go tilt at windmills. But while you’re at it, take time to actually read the bills involved, not just the the shortened version put out by special interest groups. Then learn about how what is initially proposed to Congress, or to a state legislature, rarely makes it through the legislative process without being changed–many times.

                Oh, and a word, your wiki cite on rape statistics is one reason I say to get the real stats. First of all, the AMA source is more than 15 years old. The DoJ stats are six and seven years old. Not exactly current, are they?

                Also, from a legal standpoint, if you are going to start with a presumption of innocent in a criminal trial, it can be argued that calling someone a victim automatically assumes a crime has occurred. I’m not saying it’s right, but it is something that prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges have to consider.

             2. jonnnney, I doubt much is served by a recitation of things with which you are unfamiliar, especially as it is evident that so much of that with which you are familiar just ain’t so.

                If you really need an instance of a “victim of rape” committing libel I suggest you Google, Bing or Wiki Mike Nifong, Duke Lacrosse case and/or Crystal Mangum.

                Oddly enough, this whole topic is completely irrelevant to the thesis of Ms Hoyt’s post.

       2. “If you want to get an abortion, you have to essentially let a doctor rape you with a medical probe..” This is just absurd. That’s how the procedure is performed. That is the *only* way the procedure can be performed to ensure that the mother doesn’t die of horrific, systemic infections. Unless the woman’s stomach is opened and foetus pulled out that way. (Or maybe concentrating on various crystals will cause the foetus to go someplace else?) Or is everything rape?

          1. I cited my sources, if you were confused you should have checked them. The procedure fits the legal definition of rape, I used the word essentially because consent can be tricky in a situation where one procedure is required by an unrelated procedure.

             1. Sigh. I will say this once and only once. Your cites are, at best, secondary and potentially from sources with their own agendas.And, no, the procedure does not fit the legal definition of rape. Not without further acts or intent by one or more of the parties involved.If you want to know what rape is, first you have to recognize it has a criminal definition defined by states’ legislatures. In Texas, it is as follows:

                From the Texas Penal Code, Sec. 22.011.
                SEXUAL ASSAULT.
                (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
                (1) intentionally or knowingly:
                (A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person’s consent;

                In order to be guilty of the offense of rape, you have to have the intent, you have to have penetration and it has to be WITHOUT CONSENT. If you are undergoing an ultrasound, or any other invasive procedure, you sign a consent form. Again, you have the choice. The only time that choice may not rest with you is if you are a minor and then your parents have the responsibility to consent or not.

                In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I just cited a primary source, i.e. the statue involved. Unless you care to continue this discussion using primary sources and not media, not political websites, then drop it and move on. If all you want to do is keep repeating that it is rape, don’t bother. You’ve said your piece and I’ve responded with primary source material. So either respond with primary source material or move on.

             2. Jonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnney,

                You’re talking about ultrasound? >snort< I thought you were talking about the vacuum nozzle or the D&C instrument used in the actual abortion procedure. I've held the hands of women who were having *that* done — and I've had an ultrasound (and given birth via C-Section twice). Trust me, there is absolutely no comparison. Saying that the *ultrasound* is rape, but the actual procedure is … what? … utterly meaningless?.. is not only an affront to the English language, but you owe every woman *and* man who has ever undergone *actual* rape the most abject apology you are capable of.

       3. You know, I never really understood the whole, “You have to let a doctor essentially rape you” argument. I’ve been getting yearly pap-smears since I was 15, and I don’t even know how many strangers’ hands were up my junk when I was in labor with my kids. Was any of that rape? News to me. Guess I’ll run to my fainting couch now, since I’ve been victimized god knows how many times without even knowing it.

          The only real difference I see between Republicans and Democrats (or traditionalists and feminists, for that matter), is that the former want to be sternly paternalistic of women and actually have expectations of them, while the latter are like the permissive father that lets his daughter run wild and never fails to buy her whatever she wants if she stamps her feet hard enough, bail her out no matter how shitty her decisions are, or help and support her no matter how horribly she behaves toward others.

          Both sides are disgustingly paternalistic toward women.

          1. Hi, interesting to see you stick your nose into this!

             I think it was one of your blog postings that I was referring to when I mentioned that – looking at it from strictly from a freedom of decision view – that women had a lot less in the past, but when you also tack on obligations, that men and women at least had obligations (which for men included the assumed much higher likelihood of getting killed) that matched their freedom.

             In short, authority used to roughly equal responsibility.

             Since then, feminists have screamed for more freedom (authority) to make their own decisions, but pushed the responsibility more toward men for dealing with the consequences of every decision they make – no matter how crappy. (How dare you expect me to do anything for the husband who I expect to provide for me? I’m going shopping!)

             I’d love a society where women get more choices of what they can do, but such a mismatch always leads to misery in the long run if those choices aren’t matched by the responsibility for the results of those decisions.

             It also means that to the extent that an individual woman wishes to be protected or provided for, she must also subscribe to having her choices limited by the person providing that protection. Thomas Jefferson’s political adage that he with the power to grant something also has the power to take it away, at a personal level. Also TANSTAAFL.

             I make no claims as to what’s reasonable – though I’m sure “stay within the budget” would qualify for most adults from the provider to the provided-for. That’s for the adults involved to hash out. But any marriage, or other relationship – employee-employer for example – requires a hashing out of what obligations exist by both parties, and what both parties expect to gain from the other.

             I think feminism, with it’s cry of “F* that, no-one tells me what to do!” has largely forgotten that. They want the perks, and the baubles, but not the risk, the responsibility, and more importantly, the constraints. Much like a lot of people in lower ranks in the military, or lower in the hierarchy of a business don’t understand that if the organization is reasonably well run, those up the chain with the nicer perks, etc., often have a crushing responsibility to keep an eye on things and consistently make the right decisions (we’ve lost some of this recently with corporate-government ties, like the GM bailouts, but that’s another story that nevertheless proves my point about mismatches in responsibility and authority being bad….)

             To badly quote Stan lee – with power comes responsibility. looking at classic literature through the ages, men have understood that for millennia, and that the power of even a tyrant is not absolute. I’m not so sure feminists do – though I’m always glad to run into women who’re willing to give as well as take.

18. An Island of common sense in the sea of modern insanity. I was starting to fear such places and become extinct. Very happy to find I was wrong about that.

19. BRAVA!!!!!

20. It’s cultural Marxism implementation. Part of the plan involves breaking up the original patriarchal structure of the family in order to weaken society and increase government dependency. It started in America in the 1960’s and yes, it is a conspiracy. Research the Frankfurt School and Marcuse.

    1. I think that you could make an argument where it’s now an Uber-patriarchy, with “daddy” and provider and defender being the government, and the “any random guy”/ sucker husband (at the point the lady is not haaaaapy with not getting all the attention and shopping she wants, whenever she wants, and the guy wants to go off and do guy things sometimes) being the ongoing paycheck, or he gets beat up by big daddy government.

       After all – anything that makes life unpleasant or nasty, or even inconvenient for women, no matter what choice they make (and tell them they can’t choose? How horrible, you backwards neanderthal pig!) MUST be prevented, by other men in the government.

       Can’t remember where I saw it once – but someone started from the classic point that responsibility MUST match authority or scope of freedom to choose, and pointed out that if you only look at the metric of freedom to decide, it used to really suck for women.

       If, on the other hand, you looked at obligations – that of men to provide and defend – it explained a lot of the restrictions on women – much in the sense that a bodyguard, despite being an employee, has a significant say on where you can and cannot go and how you should do things.

       “Feminists” have tossed those obligations aside (“You can’t tell me what to do!”), expect no restrictions on their behavior or choices, but still expect the full suite of obligations to protect, etc. from men, and then some. Without giving anything back.

       1. “Feminists” have tossed those obligations aside, expect no restrictions on their behavior or choices, but still expect the full suite of obligations to protect, etc. from men, and then some.

          That recent cruise ship crash, where the captain and a lot of the male passengers (apparently) abandoned the “women and children first” bit and took to the lifeboats first? They were feminists. Seriously, that’s where feminism leads – the obligations to protect WILL fail.

          1. From where I sit (X-navy) – the Captain abandoning his responsibility to actually manage and lead his crew and ship to take care of his charges (assuming that’s the case, but barring truly extenuating circumstances that’s what it looks like) is simply put a failure of duty and responsibility, period. Nothing to do with feminism. If the guy did that he is scum, period, and cannot meet his duties to his employers or the people entrusted to his charge.

             Oddly – despite my antifeminist leanings as posted above, I think in most circumstances the Birkenhead drill is muddle-headed. It “worked” a couple times, most notably in its first incarnation, where there were armed and disciplined people willing and able to back the policy up, organized enough to make it possible.

             Apply it to any situation more chaotic, and we’re likely to not only save more people, but more women if that’s your priority, by filling lifeboats as efficiently as possible, first come-first served, in family groupings.

             Remember – ANY back traffic, andy holdups in the traffic flow due to goodbyes, will severely impact the ability to fill the lifeboats – think how traffic on the side of the highway that doesn’t even have an accident can end up coming to a complete stop due to the delayed ripple effect of a few rubberneckers slowing down, and multiply that. Ship singings often are too fast to afford those kind of traffic jams.

             I also said “if that’s your priority” about women first. Sure, I recognize that women are the bottleneck in replacing our population. I also recognize that men are more suited to high-risk occupations and positions including high-mortality “protector” positions. That said, a hard-core “women first” attitude requires ignoring that Feminists seem to be determined to nullify the female role as having any significance (which I personally find a tragedy). It also renders men as a disposable commodity and not individuals in their own right worth saving. Lastly – if we load the lifeboats/whatever “women first” rather than as they come along (likely to roughly be the demographic of whoever’s there), then in addition to the fact that we may cause MORE casualties as noted above, but we have a bunch of lifeboats that are mostly women, and very few of the protectors/etc. who can provide muscle power, etc. as needed.

21. Bravo !!! Bravo !!!

22. Also Gramsci.

23. Everyone needs to read ‘The Misandry Bubble’. It is the definitive article on the War on Men.

    And Sarah, thank you for pointing this out. There are allies who can support you, now that you have said THE most un-PC thing one can say in America.

    Playing the race card? Meh, that is trivial. But dare to point out that women have it better than men in many areas, and *that* is sacrilege.

    I will go so far as to say that manufacturing imaginary examples of female oppression and male evil, is the dominant ideology in America today.

24. Women on birth control have the ultimate control over when to have children, and more importantly, with whom. Most men have no idea if the women they are having sex with, whether regularly or for a night, are really on birth control, even if they say so. And most men can be convinced not to wear a condom. Thus, the importance of birth control to feminists is that the man can never know until the woman wants him to, esp. to support the child he fathered.

    1. Maybe men should wear a condom to avoid this Evul Feminist conspiracy?

       1. So you are claiming that women are not capable of being held responsible for their own actions?

          What a misogynist.

          1. No, but any man who doesn’t use a condom if he doesn’t want diseases or offspring is an idiot. Belt *and* suspenders 🙂

       2. Better yet, maybe all men should take SSRI’s so that they no longer feel any desire for sex. That’ll fix it.

          1. The obesity and unkemptness of most modern women achieves that outcome already.

             No wonder pickup artists are exploding – that is the last remaining way in which to interact with modern women efficiently and at low cost.

25. It looks as if mine is the dissident voice here. I do think ronre is a war on women. Yoat else do you call it when half the population are taken posoneral prisoners, only allowed to voice their opinions so long as those opinioins enget challenge political orthodoxy, all on the basis of their being Vaginated-Americans? Women are being denied their individuality, forced into the ghetto of identity politique and even having their “gender identity” denied for the thought crime of asserting a view contrary to the group’s? “Sara Palin is not a woman, she’s a Republican” — remember?

    Other than that, great post, dittos, kudos, felicitations, salut and hot chocky all around.

    1. Womens rights are being severely trampled in the rural areas? We all don’t live in a large or medium sized city. I live in a very small town where women are NOT respected- MEN are. OI can’t have a plumbver/ electrician etc if I call them . My husband has to & the only way they will talk with me is if I tell the “I am paying for this job” & then I can see it is difficult. This is an a rarity to see blacks or hispanics)ln our white county – I remember going to look up medical conditions ( we adopted 2 Special Needs Kids ) & were given phamphlets back in the 50’s!!!!
       We are barely into the late 70’s why go back again????

       1. Really? A rural county in the USA where blacks and hispanics are rare? OMG, do tell! Why, that sounds like almost every county in my home state of Missouri, where the vast majority of the black and hispanic population can be found in urban areas. As for the rest, honestly, I call shenannigans. My family lives in a small town (I moved to the city a long time ago), and my mother has no issues calling up a repairman to fix things, getting an electrician or plumber out to the house, and the last time the well pump broke (well water, see, that’s how rural we are) she called the service man herself and he came right away. You know, it might just be me, but from the tone of your post I’m betting that it’s not women in general who’ve got an issue where you live, it’s probably just you.

       2. You believe a minor discomfort is “war on women”? When compared to female genital mutilation, acid thrown over girls who go to school, and the myriad other things that women endure in Islamic countries? Amazing. Or else you only read a snippet and responded in ignorance of the entire post.

       3. Dear ruralAmerica:
          Nowhere in my (admittedly typo-ridden) post did I say ANYTHING limiting the trampling of women’s rights to rural America, nor denying such trampling exists. Whether women’s rights are trampled in the manner you describe or by subordination of their individual views to those dictated by a group purporting to represent women, the point remains that women’s rights are being trampled.

          The answer to abuse of one type IS NOT fleeing to abuse of a different type.

          “Whether the pitcher hits the stone or the stone hits the pitcher, either way it is bound to be bad for the pitcher.”

       4. This, folks, is what the people in talk radio call “a seminar caller.”

    2. Typo corrected, my apologies, as if anyone should care now, given the storm front which passed through here subsequent to Ms Hoyt’s diatribe:

       It looks as if mine is the dissident voice here. I do think there is a war on women. What else do you call it when half the population are taken political prisoners, only allowed to voice their opinions so long as those opinions don’t challenge political orthodoxy, all on the basis of their being Vaginated-Americans? Women are being denied their individuality, forced into the ghetto of identity politique and even having their “gender identity” denied for the thought crime of asserting a view contrary to the group’s: “Sara Palin is not a woman, she’s a Republican” — remember?

       Other than that, great post, dittos, kudos, felicitations, salut and hot chocky all around.

26. while we’ve been told, ad nauseum, how women are victims, misandry has run rampant in our culture. turn on a television for an hour and you will learn. from both the programming and the advertising in particular that men are big, dumb, useless, filthy mugs while women are brilliant, enlightened, problem-solvers who can barely conceal their contempt for the idiot brutes to whom they must tend in order to keep the family operating, if not to keep the entire planet rotating on its axis.
    excellent article, sarah. i hope that it lights the fuse to a new revolution in our assessment of the sexes.

27. In the post t’other day whds household received one of those over-sized postcards so beloved by political campaigns (and so ignored by most recipients), touting the benefits to this household of what is colloquially called Obamacare. Beloved Spouse and I each noted that the three talking points covered in the mailer were targeted at women, especially womyn poor at logic.

    First benefit is that insurance companies can no longer charge womyn “as much as” 30% more for their coverage than they charge men. But historically womyn USE more “health care services” than men … eh, we won’t go there today. More importantly, if a couple, let’s call them Sarah and Dan, buy their insurance individually (perhaps Sarah is self-employed while Dan works for an employer) Sarah’s insurance is now discounted 15% while Dan’s goes up 15% — net houfehold benefit a wash (I know, it’s way more complex but this is merely an illustration.) Except Sarah’s insurance was deductible from the family tax return, meaning that deduction is reduced and the family’s net after-tax income is less. Oops.

    Another point the flyer made is we can now keep our 26-year old offspring on our insurance policy. Frankly, I’d rather she got a job, moved out and got on with becoming an Adult-American, even if that is becoming an endangered species. Among other things, we need the room for book storage!

    The thrust of the flyer is clear, however: please enlist in the war on women. We’ll give you GI benefits and these nifty kapo badges!

    1. In the post prior, the word “whds” was intended to be “this.” WordPress has of late acquired a dismaying tendency to freeze under pressure, then toss random letters onto the screen in an effort to catch up. To all who were confused by whds error, I apologise.

    2. You previous post had even more mystifying words; thanks for the explanation. (I was going crazy trying to figure out what “enget” and “ronre” were)

28. Pingback: War on women, my ass « This Mother's Nature

29. “Make love, not war.” Well, if you are going to make love, not war you have to let go of the nasty attitude and tone of voice. Very likely, this post is going viral for reasons my husband, who sent it to me, could explain. I think the tone is called “snarky”, right? ~but how useful is snark, if that’s a word. There are a lot of women who are very deeply invested in birth control . . . in every sense of the word . . . and their voices are completely legitimate, even as Salon announced that the “War on Women” Dem campaign is a huge flop. Good and, well, okay … okay … we hear the women who say “birth control is just like childhood immunizations” and … hey, gals, let’s talk. Fertility is not a life threatening disease and, even if you want to control your fertility, there are lots of options without health risk and don’t line the pockets of Watson Pharma! Women need to talk … snark aside.

    1. I believe part of the problem is in the “ear” of the reader, here. I see no overt snark. Trust me, you don’t want to see what snark unleashed around here (either by our hostess or people who follow her blog faithfully) looks like.

30. Well said. The Republican party earns the moniker of “The Stupid Party” by buying into this theme and treating it like anything other than a cheap political ploy. To whoever is swayed by the “War on Women” theme, to borrow from Samual Adams “…— go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

    1. I didn’t really mean to single out the Republican party (though it fits)… ANYBODY that buys into this is, IMHO, is either disengenuous and/or not thinking critically.

31. Right!
    Anyone doubting the ‘war’ (not so much) on men, just try applying for a job as a white, non-hispanic man. Not really a war, just the idiocy of discriminating to compensate for discrimination.

    Utopia is an impossible dream because we are all imperfect. So when imperfect people attempt to create a perfect society, they create tyranny. Only God can make a perfect world, and by the way, that is what he will do. But when people think they are going to do that but only add injustice to injustice, God must be pretty disgusted with them.

32. Whew. A gem! My favorite: “forget paying for the rope: they will force you to pay them to hang you”. And to harvest your organs right after.

    Let us not delude ourselves. The goal of the leftie agitprop machine is not equality or fairness. It has everything to do with a disaffected group from the Middle trying to set itself up as the new High using the Low as cannon fodder — and turning themselves into kid-glove tyrants in the name of “social” “justice”.

    With apologies to George Orwell (and to Wretchard): Imagine the future as a dirty Birkenstock stamping on a human face – forever.

33. Great post!! I sarcasticly joke with my husband & sons all the time about how they have become second class citizens, but we realize that we really need to stop this insanity and start fighting back against this war on men. I say this not only for my husband & sons but for my daughters also. Men are NOT the enemy, the enemy is far left liberal feminist that make everything a battle against men. Thanks again for verbalizing my sentiments.

34. May I adopt you, I’d love to have TWO daughters who get this, or would you adopt me?

    The ONLY thing about your post I object to is that I didn’t write it two decades ago!

    I cannot help but think that you have done an utteerly masterful (mistressful?) job of capturing the convictions of those of us women who are deeply grateful that human being are of two sexes, and who wish that the feminist movement hadn’t made such a cock-up of the relationship between us.

35. Pingback: The War on Women: What Bill Press and NPR Choose to Overlook | The Rio Norte Line

36. You ladies are giving me hope. I have a 20 year old daughter who is in the process of finalizing a breakup with a “man” who is so hipster-campy my stomach turns just looking at him.

    No, I did not get involved and I didn’t try to break them up. She is coming to that conclusion all by herself. It’s clear to many people around the world that we are entering a period of instability that can manifest itself in many difficult ways.

    I pray she will find a strong man who will stand between her and her children — and all the Legions of Hell, because I do believe it will be necessary in the future.

37. I was coming here hoping fight a fight and to possibly add a tanker truck load of gasoline to the fire. And I see that I’m thinking too small. Your commenters have piped in a refinery’s worth.

    Excellent.

    BTW I have three sons and a daughter. And the thought that runs through my mind all the time is that if and when possible she could help the boys. And the boys are no slouches. A UChicago graduate and an EE and an artist. Still it goes through my mind.

38. “for a fight”

39. Pingback: K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple, Stupid (We Ain’t That Bright,…) »                      ♆ The Macho Response ♆

40. As the mother of three sons I applaud your comments. They grew up during the “Reviving Ophelia” era where moms’ of girls were trying to tell me that their daughters were being ignored at school (just like we had been, they said.) All I could remember was my own experience growing up – Raising my hand and being called upon constantly while the boys were usually sent to the office for a paddling by the principal for unruly behavior.

    I thought it a silly notion then, and believe it has had a seriously negative effect on boys as we can see by the college numbers.

    And in my opinion, being the child bearer is an awesome (biblical usage)
    experience. A gift really.

41. Liberals need boogeymen.

42. Couple of observations, Sarah.

    1. Something I observed in Kurdestan, among Kurdish women, was that their approach to life was that women who didn’t raise their sons and brothers to believe themselves to be superior orders of being became the slaves of women who did. In the big scheme of things, Radical Egalitarian Feminism will get what it’s earned and what it deserves. “What’s mah bid for this fahn…?”

    2. Taxation…Ypu haven’t suggested this but wouldn’t it be nice if people could designate where their tax dollars went; DoD for me and, oh, their tax money going to the non-nuclear whale abortion program, for the Greens, the Endowment for the Prevention of Everything by Anyone, for the anarchists and extreme libertarians, UN contributions for the Cosmopolitan Pacifists, etc? Then no pacfist need feel he has blood on his hands.

    Heh. One of the minor scams among major charitable conglomerates (think: United Way) is the notion that you can dedicate your particular offering to a partiocular charity. And, indeed, you can put in a form for your money to go to something that you think is important. It’s totally meaningless. The money is already divided up before it’s ever collected. The only way for your contribution to actually go to your preferred charity is if the amount specially dedicated to that charity exceeds the amount that was going to go there anyway. This _never_ happens. “What, never? No, never.” And it would work exactly the same way with taxation.

43. Pingback: The War Against Who? | hogewash
44. Pingback: The War Against Women | Rebel Yid - Ideas beyond the left/right, red/blue, and liberal/conservative thinking

45. There needs to be a new feminism. As a woman, I have been more than embarrassed at how certain women have jumped on this issue. Also, as a woman, I am very concerned about the messages we are sending.

    Somehow, women cannot stand on their own two feet and pay for child prevention. Clearly men can as there is no discussion of paying for condoms or the creation of a male “pill”.

    Only women need the state to become involved in their contraception choices. Men do not. i thought feminism was about moving away from a paternalistic structure where women needed someone to take care of them. Instead, it seems to be worse — instead of men directly taking care of them, these woman now seem to want the state to take care of them. I don’t get it. I do not want anyone taking care of me or getting involved in my choices.

    These women also seem to be acting as if having children is an unimaginable evil which the state needs to help prevent. That seems to be the subtext — somehow, without the employer mandate, woman will be forced to have children which is the worst thing ever.

    I also hate to see how the Democratic party counts on women to focus on their self interest and not on larger policy issues. “Waaa! I want someone to pay for something for me” seems to be the message resounding with Democratic women. They do not look at things such as the role of the state in our sex lives, what should and should not be paid for by the state, and the complete ignorance of the other requirement that the state is forcing employers effectively to pay for abortions. Let’s just ignore that elephant in the room — which again seems to me to be a war on children, not women.

    Finally, as a woman who pays bills, my desire is to obtain good health care at the cheapest rates. With the new regs, we will pay more. There is no requirement that only the cheapest drug be used. I remember when I had a plan that did not cover paying for birth control. It cost me under $10 dollars a month to buy the prescription without any insurance. Once I moved to a new employer who covered birth control under their insurance, the cost of the prescription went up to $26 for the same thing. My doctor had prescribed a brand name drug. When I paid directly, I got the generic. With my insurance paying, I got the brand name. Even if I didn’t pay all of that difference directly, I was paying for it through my premiums. Now move that to all employers paying for the brand name and you will understand what the new regs require — there is no provision for employers to limit to the cheapest choice possible.

    1. What’s interesting is that yes, liberal women think it would be the worst thing ever for them to have children, and men like Obama think it would be a punishment for his daughters to reproduce/ bring about more Obamas. Hmmm, I’m happy when my relatives bring more of “us” into the world, unplanned or no.

       1. What’s even more interesting is that your comment is complete nonsense. Wanting to have as much control as possible over one’s reproduction does not equate to thinking kids are the Worst Thing Ever. Not even close.

          1. You are not looking at the women who are strongly out there making the arguments. They do give off this vibe. If you listen to their subtext, you would hear it. They make this ridiculous argument that if someone else will not pay for it, then they cannot get it and it with result in — horrors — children! Obviously this is a stupid argument as they have two choices — don’t work for a religious employer, or use some of their salary to pay for birth control.

             1. If you’re such a proficient mind-reader, can you psychic me up Wednesday’s Powerball numbers? I’ll cut you in on the winnings, I promise.

                1. All you need to do is look at the comment of Consider This below. The lack of an employer mandate will result in more children on an already over-burdened planet. This is not the only comment of its kind.

       2. You’re happy about unplanned pregnancies and unwanted children? You’re happy about mindlessly adding more people to this overburdened planet? Wow.

          1. The state doesn’t have to force an employer to pay to prevent pregnancies. People who do not want them have used a lot of different methods to prevent pregnancy either paid for by the woman or the man. You present the same type of ridiculous arguments as the women on this issue — if the employer doesn’t pay, we will have children — and again the horror of overburdening the planet with children. So thank you for making my point.

          2. The population bomb is a myth, silly. I like all of my children, both the planned and the unplanned. But, they take after ME so of course they’re all extremely attractive, healthy, brilliant, good young men and women, except the ones that are still good, healthy, brilliant, attractive children.

             And it wasn’t “mindless”; we take our obligation to the gene pool very seriously, and our commitment to making the Right-Wing Conspiracy a Vast one. I have some bad news for you, though; they’re ALL pro-life.

          3. How is not paying for a woman’s birth control “mindlessly adding more people to this overburdened plant”? The logical conclusion is that you feel women themselves are mindless and won’t think to purchase and use birth control if government isn’t there to push it down their throats at everyone else’s expense.

             And you might want to consider who’s going to be paying into the social safety net and old age security systems when you’re in your decrepitude, if the fogeys suddenly find themselves outnumbering the working-age adults…

    2. “and the complete ignorance of the other requirement that the state is forcing employers effectively to pay for abortions.”

       Birth control =/= abortions

       1. I do not happen to be Catholic, but if you look at the correspondence from the U.S. bishops, you will see that the viewpoint of the church is that preventing implantation of an embryo is an abortion. Thus, the employer mandate would make it impossible for the church to bend. Why is there no respect for separation of church and state on this one? Why does the church have to be forced to pay for what it abhors?

       2. I once heard the most effective birth control pill in the world is a baby aspirin.

          How you may ask?

          Hold it between your knees, works every time.

          1. But no so much fun! And hard to do after a drink or two 🙂

             1. It’s back to that much maligned personal responsibility thing. You don’t want a baby? Keep your knees together or your pecker in your pocket. Failing that? Pay for your own birth control. It’s not my responsibility to pay for it any more than it’s my responsibility to take care of your baby when you were too busy letting your hormones think for you.

                1. Couldn’t agree more!

             2. And hard to do after a drink or two 🙂

                Interestingly anthropological studies demonstrate that what you can or cannot control after a drink or two is effected by what society allows. In France, for example, a couple of drinks is not considered an acceptable excuse for loosing control of oneself. While it may demonstrably affect your reaction time and hand eye coordination, it does not give you the excuse of, ‘the devil made me do it.’

46. Pingback: Sarah Hoyt Speaks Truth to Power « Andrew J. Patrick

47. Sarah, AMEN! Now that’s a hill I’m willing to die on. As the wife of a *real* man, and mother to two beautiful sons, I must concur. The women in this family (myself, daughter & dil) are willing to fight for men’s rights.

48. This was an incredible articulation of my rantings. Thank you.

    I can [and have for 30 years] buy my own contraception, thanks but no thanks. Just as the statists have done to minorities they are trying to do to women. “See little girls here’s some candy, come over here.” What is true autonomy is financial independence. The statists hate autonomy.

    You make many great points. But also even more insidious to me is the reality that once you start taking the “freebies” [even though nothing is ‘”free” and we all know it], who chooses what you get for “free”. It’s not you, that’s for sure.

    Ps…if you “die” on this hill, it will be a hell of a fight because you will be joined by legions of women like me. I’ll bring my husband and my son too.

    Pss…don’t you find the sex boycott by women on the left incredibly ironic. You’ve come a long way baby if the only way to get your man to do what you want is by withholding sex. Women were doing that before we could vote and own property. Did they teach them that at college?

    1. I thought the boycott threat was hilarious; liberal women were threatening to begin practicing self-restraint? So..that..they..wouldn’t..need..contraceptives..in..the..first..place.

49. Why, if there is a “Republican war on women!!!”, do Democrats support gun control (confiscation)?

50. (My apologies if this posts more than once. Difficulties encountered.)

    I would agree with much of what has been written here, the exception being with one uncomfortable issue not mentioned in the article, that does have to do with the current internet inflammation.
    While I agree that employers should not be forced to insure, or be forced to insure any certain way, what bothers me greatly is the latest Arizona weirdness about a proposed law empowering employers being able to verify, by demand, what an employee is taking a hormonal medication for, if it already falls under the approved formulary. In other words, covered under the plan…
    Understand my reasoning, please.
    Allowing an employer to have access to a patient’s private medical history is stepping over that line – remember, this is something that currently only insurers, medical professionals and spouse/guardian/family have access to, by way of signing a medical release.
    I’m just not getting that warm, fuzzy feeling about this, as we quibble about what doors might be opening…

51. You should add that the real war on women is conducted in those societies where adults cut off bodily organs from adolescent girls that those girls just might want to keep, if they knew any better. Often, this is done by the similarly afflicted mother.

    I believe the FGM rate in Egypt is 90%.

52. Actually, what pisses me off is _certain groups_ wanting the exclusion to have to avoid paying for it all, while trying to make it so they get the benefits without the expenditure.

    My preference is for no one to pay for ANY healthcare (insurance, out of pocket, etc) for anyone else. I don’t even like the “primary” method of health insurance in the US, I prefer the HSA style. Why? Because most people seem to think a doctor’s visit really only costs $20-30. No, it’s anywhere between $50-150… for a PCP. I know; I’ve paid both my upfront costs with the HSA, and directly when I didn’t have any insurance (and, for that matter, basically no money).

    But if you (this is the general, generic “you”) are going to make me pay for it, because you thought the whole stupid malarkey was a _great_ idea … You had better damn well do so, too.

    What does worry the living hell out of me is the current “climate” of “Let’s legislate rape in the name of preventing abortion.” That’s scary. I’ve been raped. I was seven. I still freak out over *PAP smears.* I wouldn’t get an abortion, but there’s far too many women who have been … molested (at “best”) for this to not be retraumatizing … or causing new trauma. Yes, I do know someone who was basically raped by obgyn equipment by the nurse using said equipment … and it’s not as an uncommon “birth related trauma” as it should be (from what research on the medical birthing process I’ve done, in the hopes I will one day need to avail myself of such). Violation of the body is violation of the body. I also get upset about people joking about men being raped in jail by other men.

    1. The transvaginal ultrasounds that are being pushed by Republicans to shame women into not getting an abortion would also be considered rape.

       1. Being considered something and being that thing not entirely the same thing. For example, Obama is widely considered an effective orator.

       2. Have you considered that the accepted standard of care for an infantic… I mean abortion is that a transvaginal ultrasound be done? Have you considered that all that is being demanded is that the women in question view the results?

          Have you considered that if you consider that rape then my last prostate exam was too?

          1. “Have you considered that the accepted standard of care for an infantic… I mean abortion is that a transvaginal ultrasound be done?”

             Incorrect.

             “Have you considered that all that is being demanded is that the women in question view the results?”

             And what is the purpose of doing that?

             “Have you considered that if you consider that rape then my last prostate exam was too?”

             Prostate exams are routine standard of care that provide medical knowledge to the doctor and patient. TVUS in this setting does none of that, it’s merely an obstacle to try and prevent a legal procedure.

             1. it’s merely an obstacle to try and prevent a legal procedure

                I believe that presenting the results to the patient has to do with informed consent. If there is nothing wrong with the procedure, why should more knowledge about the situation be so troublesome?

                I do not understand why you should think women are so weak as not to be able to deal with facts.

             2. Are you a Doctor sir?

             3. And while we’re at it, prove me wrong boyo, ’cause just saying “incorrect” don’t cut it.

53. Insightful,and on target.Thanks!

54. As it turns out, fish DO need bicycles. http://1800recycling.com/2011/03/coral-reefs-recycled-sunken-vehicles/

55. (sustained applause) Now, that is a righteous rant!
    What angers me unutterably about the whole ‘war on women’ meme is how unutterably transparent it is. It’s an excercise in brute power by the civil authority, but not over women – over the Catholic church. This will not turn out well…

    1. Yes, the poor, put-upon Catholic Church. Never mind that their problems are almost entirely of their own making.

       1. Jason, typical redirection. Or should I say smoke and mirrors? What the previous poster said had nothing to do with what you are now trying to pull into the discussion (and I use that term loosely). The issue is whether or not the government can mandate that a religious organization do something that is against one of its basic tenets. That’s all. So stick with the topic or go away.

          1. Did you miss the part where she commented that the current contraception kerfuffle is an attack on the Catholic Church?

56. Excuse me, but I think you have it backwards. Feminism is a war on women and men are winning!

    In your grandparents’ generation and every generation previously, a man had to work to pay for every morsel the wife and kids ate, every thread they wore, every book they read and every movie they saw, with enough left over when he kicked off so the wife never had to work a day of her life and the kids got an inheritance.

    Nowadays a man doesn’t have to work. The wife works to pay for all those things, her retirement and the kids’ inheritance included. And the man gets a lot more sex, if that’s what he wants (as if).

    Thanks to feminism men can retire early and watch wifey go off to work every morning at a job that became boring years ago. There are compensations.

57. Pingback: The so-called war on women | Crowhill Weblog

58. I’m going to post this to my facebook page, and well done, Sarah. And now next time I’m in a bookstore, I need to remember to buy another of your books (already read one.)

59. Sarah –

    This is a magnificent post – I commend your courage for being willing to buck the tide. The reality of the “war against men” is slowly filtering its way into the public’s awareness, with people like yourself, James Taranto (at the WSJ), and a few others daring to speak the truth. Terms like “hypergamy” are working their way into discussions, and people are beginning to point out things like the epidemic of female teachers molesting boys, the real rate of female-initiated domestic violence; and, most controversial of all, modern women’s trouble with bearing false witness: false rape accusations are now a common way to simply avoid having to admit they’re sleeping around, false domestic abuse accusations are almost required now as a first step toward divorce, and false child-abuse accusations are nearly the norm in child-custody fights. Judges refuse to even countenance that women are capable of abuse, and men who raise the issue face punitive settlements just for daring to question society’s assumption that mothers are incapable of imperfection.

    Not surprisingly, this has gotten the men’s rights movement added to the list of terrorist organizations maintained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and my guess is, more and more men’s rights activists will find themselves on no-fly lists, and being turned down for security clearances, and such.

    Oh, and you said: “The government will eventually force you to pay them to hang you.”

    NO eventually about it, they’re already starting: TSA is now charging people $100.00 for less-molested access to airplanes, but of course, that won’t stop their pedophiles from groping your handicapped, wheel-chair bound 3 year old.

60. Well said, Sarah. Move over. I want to join you on your hill.

61. Pingback: “War?” on Women | Miscellaneous Musings of a Meandering Mind

62. Bookmarking this just so I can link to it wherever I run into “war on women” rhetoric.

    1. You may want to find the aforementioned “Misandry Bubble” blog post as well as visit the following site: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/

63. As a manwho has ways loved women, and who was traduced, then betrayed by feminism, I can only offer profound thanks for this.

    And as a soi-disant blogger, I admit envy as to the power of your prose.

64. Sarah, I just say consider the source of the “War on Women”. The current political regime can’t point to anything positive that they have done in office. So they have to misdirect the narrative away from everything they have failed at. They and their willing accomplices (The Mainstream Media, NOW, National Labor Unions, and liberals of all stripes just to start with.) are trying their best to divide this country for the purpose of conquering it. If you don’t believe me, then look at all of the spoils that have been handed out to the National Labor Unions and their cronies over the past three years.

    1. Tim, the “War on Women” theme has been going strong long before Obama.

       He’s just “joining” the crowd.

65. In the upcoming election, most of the groups in society have already chosen sides: conservatives are lined up behind Not-Obama, liberals will die for him. Among the swing voters, men are trending toward Not-Obama, which leaves moderate women as the crucial battleground for 2012.

    And by an amazing coincidence, the media have discovered a “Republican War on Women” just in time for campaign season.

    1. “And by an amazing coincidence, the media have discovered a “Republican War on Women” just in time for campaign season.”

       Yes, I’m sure it has nothing to do with the latest rash of Republican bills forcing transvaginal ultrasounds and heartbeat recordings on women seeking abortions, calling women advocating for birth control coverage sluts and whores, and trying to get an embryo labeled as a person.

       1. You know, ultra sound and fetal heartbeat recordings *have* to be done, to prove pregnancy (along with blood work) before they shove the vacuum into the uterus, or do dissection and curettage to take the contents out. Because doing either of those things to a pregnant uterus is very dangerous, but doing them to a non-pregnant uterus is criminal malpractice.

          And I’d love to see an actual citation for the actual law that specifies “transvaginal ultrasound”. As far as I am able to determine, this is a total fabrication that has been passed around the internet by hysterical feminists (and I do us the word ‘hysterical’ in full knowledge of it’s origin in Greek).

66. That was AWESOME!! I agree with every single thing you wrote. Thank you for speaking out.

67. Mascot and victim politics is alive and well, There used to be political gain in mascot politics, but that’s the beauty of the internets. there is no control of the narrative. Not only does the emperor wear no clothes, everyone has a iPhone to prove it.

68. Only 1 in 10 female embryos in China are aborted?

    1. Not sure what you’re trying to get at there,..

       Since this was about the societal/conservative “war on women” being a sham, and feminism being the source of much of suffering today on the part of men (AND women, but men are the very overt target, women being hurt is second-order effects and collateral), I’d point out that most SoCons are against abortion in almost all cases (because of this, after all, being against birth control pills for pregnancy management, much less against abortions is “proof” of a war on women. Thus the origin of the article)

       I’d also point out that the politics of china has a definite socialist bent, with a significant overlap as fellow travelers in world outlook with Feminism.

       So if you’re trying to say that China aborting more women than men makes the article out to be a lie… again, how is this a “conservative” or “traditionalist” war on women? Looks to me like the political faction screaming the loudest about it needs to clean house of their fellow travelers.

       1. XNook, While “Social Conservatives” are against most abortions (to save the mother’s life is one example of acceptable reasons for abortions), plenty of “Social Conservatives” are pro-Birth Control.

          What we dislike is forcing the Catholic Church to pay for the Birth Control for their employees.

          Of course, plenty of non-Social Conservatives are against the Government forcing any organization to pay for employee’s Birth Control.

          1. I agree utterly. Small “L” libertarian here – as in I think the “Big L” party doesn’t understand sometimes the state IS the proper scope of action (national security and interstate warfare perhaps?)

             I was just pointing out that I wasn’t sure what Darron was saying – it seemed to be implying that the abortion rate in China was somehow a counter to one of the article’s main points that there isn’t currently a “conservative war on women” in western society.

             To the extent that the abortion rate in China is a war on “women” specifically, and not simply on humanity, period (looking at the long term results), it’s still a direct result of leftist, not “conservative/republican” policy. The devaluation of human beings, ready availability of abortions, etc.. This war on women is damn near a direct and nigh inevitable result of the policies of those who scream loudest about there being a war on women.

    2. Nine in ten females are aborted in utero in China. There is a terrible, terrible time coming where there won’t be enough women to go around, let alone help start a new generation.

       1. “Not enough women” by that large a factor is a pressure cooker for MASSIVE social unrest, as well as collapse. It’s a travesty.

          1. And even to produce that 100 girls, I suspect there are urban classes who are being STRONGLY encouraged to go the opposite way with abortion to produce girls.

       2. The last figure I heard was 121 boys born to 100 girls in China, I suspect that’s drastically understating it.

69. Awesome article. Thanks for putting into words what I actually feel!

70. Talk about being unwilling to think! You couldn’t even get the facts straight on insurance coverage for contraception. “Getting someone else to pay for their contraception” is actually having insurance coverage, for which most of us pay plenty. If you do get cancer, and your treatment is covered by insurance, is that “getting someone else to pay for your treatment?

    I was going to say that perhaps you should stick with fiction, but you really have done so.

    1. What you fail to consider is the fact that if insurance companies are forced to pay for it, their customers–ie the employer supplying the insurance– is paying for it. Or don’t companies count? Silly me, of course they don’t. No one stops to consider the fact that increased costs get passed on to the consumer. Going back to what started this whole discussion on facebook — Heinlein — perhaps you should familiarize yourself with TANSTAAFL.

       1. The employer is not the customer, they merely pool the collective resources of the actual customers (The employees) for better leveraging at the bargaining table. The employees are the people who actually pay for it, both in terms of reduced monetary compensation for their work, and then in co-pays.

          Employers have no business injecting their religious views on their employees, at all.

          As far as “don’t companies count?” they do, but not as much as actual people. Cause one is an actual breathing human being, the other is a legal concept. So yes, the rights of the former definitely trump the rights of the latter.

          1. So, my husband’s employer has to pay higher premiums for each female (either employee or covered under employee insurance) and has to cut everybody’s wages 5 per cent in order to stay in business… and you say “the insurance companies pay for it”?? Gawd. Lemme guess – some liberal posted a snippet of this blog with a “talking point” and ya’ll are just starting to check in, comment, and run away giggling like a kid who left a bag of burning poo on a front porch. But, from my point of view, the person who picked up the poo, put it in a bag, and carried it around is much more pathetic.

             1. “has to cut everybody’s wages 5 per cent in order to stay in business” You said it yourself, the employees are paying for it, not the employer. And birth control does not cost nearly as much, that it would necessitate a 5% pay cut. From an insurance perspective paying for 20 years of BC is cheaper than paying for one birth, let alone something as costly as a c-section.

                And this was linked on fark, where I read the whole rambling thing, not just a snippet.

                Best part was the bicycle fish part.

                1. No, Towe. The employer has to pay the premiums. It’s costing them far more than 5% of salary per person – probably closer to 20%. They also have to pay the wages of the HR persons tasked with sorting out various insurance programs and acting as middle-man between the employee and the various insurance companies (optical, dental and medical are each separate. There may be another for mental-health if someone has a substance abuse problem, but I wouldn’t know). Saying “the **** insurance company pays” shows an utter ignorance of how businesses operate.

                   1. and again, a good number of companies, even small companies, are self-insured. The extra expense would take them down. Besides, it’s still moral jeopardy. AND beyond on that, I’ve been broke, really broke, but never so broke I couldn’t afford a pack of condoms, honestly. (I don’t use them because I have the fertility of granite in the desert.) These people know ABSOLUTELY nothing about how business works or how society works, or how history works, or how other people’s minds work. They know their slogans and it’s enough for them. I swear, medieval peasants were better educated.

                      1. All of this, and they tell us that if we do not send our children to the certified public or private schools they will be ignorant. Ignorant of what? Their dogma.

                      2. They were certainly more realistic, for sure.

             2. It’s cheaper to pay for birth control than for a pregnancy and delivery. Educate yourself.

                1. No, educate yourself. It is time for men and women to take responsibility for their actions. If you don’t want to have kids, you have ways to prevent it. You can pay for your birth control method of choice. YOU pay for it. Not everyone in the pool of your employer’s policy.

                   1. So don’t cover diabetes, high blood pressure, or heart medication because the fatties couldn’t take responsibility for their own actions, right?
                      Don’t cover sports related accidents because the injured should have been more responsible, right?

                      Why are you more willing to pay higher costs for pregnancies and childbirth than paying lower costs for birth control? Because you get off on playing morality police.

                      1. Nope. Not playing the morality police. I happen to believe in birth control. But I don’t believe it is my “right” to have it paid for by insurance my employer is paying for, even if only a portion of the cost, if it is against the religious beliefs of that employer. And, if you’d read all my comments, you’d see that I do agree with providing it as a medical necessity for treatment. But birth control is not a medical condition. It isn’t something that is needed to maintain life the way insulin or heart medication is.

                         1. Birth control is preventative medicine.

                            1. Nope. Preventative medicine is medicine that is prescribed to prevent disease. Last time I looked, pregnancy wasn’t a disease..

                            2. For many women it is too risky to go through pregnancy. Pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancies, passing genetic diseases on to their children, undergoing chemo therapy etc. In their case, pregnancy IS a disease that they want to prevent.

                            3. No..ACTUALLY birth control pills job is altering the bodies natural rhythms and chemical balance, to prevent something that is supposed to happen from happening. PREVENTATIVE medicine is keeping something that is NOT NATURAL to the bodies rhythms and chemical balances from happening.

                         2. Also, if you think BC should be covered for “medical necessity” purposes and not to prevent pregnancies, how will employers tell the difference? Search their employees medical records? Call the employee’s doctor? Have their employees fill out forms and swear on the bible?

                            1. “How will employers tell the difference.”

                               1) It’s not up to the employer so long as it’s specified in the insurance contract. Then it’s up to the insurance company to fulfill the terms of the contract. Thus:

                               2) The insurance company would handle it the same way it handled “cosmetic surgery” for cosmetic reasons not being covered but a cosmetic surgeon to remove a compound nevi that had a small but real chance of eventually turning cancerous.

                               Treatment covered for use A but not for use B is something insurance already deals with. It’s not the problem you imply.

                      2. Insurance companies have charged more for policies that cover people who indulge in ‘high risk’ behaviors, included smoking, drinking, and various sports. They also charge more for policies that cover those with pre-diagnosed conditions. They also charge more for policies for the obese. The elimination of such variances was part of what health care reform was sold on.

                         So? What is your point?

                         1. Those examples are all done because those patients end up costing the system more money in the long run. Birth control does not cost the system more money – it actually reduces costs by preventing pregnancies.

                            1. Where is the responsibility of the people involved? Again, I have no problem with insurance paying for birth control when there is a medical reason for it. But just so someone can avoid getting pregnant — and no, I’m not talking about those for whom pregnancy is a danger to their health — that should not be something an employer with religious objections to birth control should be forced to provide. End of topic, end of story. We will have to agree to disagree.

                            2. Insurance companies, if they want to, are perfectly free to offer policies that provide coverage of any and all birth control.

                               So, what’s your point?

                2. Consider This – you keep imputing motivation to others. Where did you learn mind-reading and is the course available online? I know some people who desperately need to be taught how to lose at poker.

          2. Actually, the employer is the customer. While the days of the employer paying all insurance costs for their employees is gone (generalization here for those who like everything to be precise), they are still the ones contracting for the service and, in most cases, paying the majority of the monies toward coverage. But, whether you agree here or not, you are still missing the salient point–increased costs to the employer will be passed on and not just to the employees.

             Now, do I believe birth control should be covered? That’s a personal decision and mine is yes–because there are medical reasons for it for a lot of women. However, I also believe that employers that have religious objections to birth control (as an example only) should not be forced by the government to provide it. That is a case of government stepping into religion. There is also this little bit of logic that so many folks seem to be missing — when an person chooses to work for a religious organization, they should know what that organization’s beliefs are and should not then expect that organization to compromise those beliefs for them.

             1. They’re only “paying the majority of the monies toward coverage” in the sense that they are paying their actual employee less actual money, but enticing them with benefits like insurance. At two companies that are exactly the same, but one offers insurance and the other doesn’t, one would expect the company with less benefits to offer more in terms of actual pay. Ultimately the costs are passed on to the employee, and make no mistake they are the consumer, because it will be them who needs actual medical treatment. One of the great things about abstract concepts like businesses and industries is that they can’t get sick.

                Employees want this coverage, insurance companies want to provide it… so why are we trying to let a business get involved in this health care relationship they only tangentially factor into?

                1. If you think it would work, find out how much it would cost per employee to pay for all their coverage. Get a majority of your co-workers to agree. Then find a company that will give you the coverage you are all willing to pay for. I’m sure your employer would be glad to be rid of the expense of paying its share of the premiums. Let me know how it goes when your fellow co-workers find out just how much more per month they will have to pay to maintain their current level of coverage.

                   Oh, and let me know how easy it is to get a majority of your co-workers to agree on what should be covered and what shouldn’t be.

                2. Actually – I’d love it if health care as a tax deduction was completely decoupled from the corporate world. Either NOBODY gets it, or anyone (including self-employed people) gets the tax deduction.

                   That gives a lot more reason for most employers who don’t have moral qualms with several coverage aspects to provide a broader spectrum of coverage , because it will give their employees more freedom to get decent coverage elsewhere.

                   So call that a “sort of agree”

                3. I think that you are missing the companies who self insure. There are a boatload of these companies, and you often cannot detect it as there is a third party administrator of the self insured plan. Most big companies are self insured. They pay plenty for health care. If you have a large number of outliers requiring very expensive care and you are a small company who has self insured, you could see the costs more clearly.

          3. “Employers have no business injecting their religious views or making their own decisions about how to spend their money or what kind of contract terms to provide to their employees because the employees can’t make up their mind for themselves and either set aside money for condoms/other birth control measures or restrain themselves, go to another employer who will provide these services, or otherwise factor the lack of contraceptive coverage into their decisions at all”

             There, fixed it for ya.

             Snark aside… where do you imagine the money to pay for the contraceptives will come from? TANSTAAFL. Someone has to pay for it and to cover this out of a companies revenues any given year, they will have to jack up the cost of health coverage, or cut costs elsewhere… fewer raises, smaller raises, lower salaries for new hires – resulting in a net loss because not only have we shifted the cost from those who need the service to everyone else in the company, but we’ve increased the bureaucratic drag and regulatory friction in the system.

             In short – women will end up with the same overall standard of living OR WORSE. That’s assuming that they’re as economically productive as men – which given the prevalence of women in “overhead” departments – leads one to the path of “they’ll be better off because they’re legally stealing it from men,” and “men not paying attention to me/supporting me is a war against meeeee.”

             Let’s try a one word substitution:

             Employers have no business injecting their moral views on their employees, at all.

             Hmmm… I’m not sure you’d argue against that…or should I have a problem with a company that decides it wants to subsidize vegan meals as part of its lunch programs?

             Perhaps companies shouldn’t be allowed to fire people who won’t honor contracts?

             Also – shelter, clothing and food are necessities for life – arguably more so than contraceptives. Why aren’t companies required to subsidize housing, provide ration cards to cover the family grocery bill, and set up a line of credit at the Gap?

             Nevermind, that’s what the paycheck is supposed to cover.

             1. xnook: ever read Pohl & Kornbluth’s Gladiator at Law? Those of us who have got a fond reminiscent smile from your proposal.

                1. I will have to rectify that oversight, as I don’t recall reading it.

          4. Thank-you for this eloquent argument for elimination of “employer-paid” insurance coverage. Individuals should be able to receive the full economic benefits of their labors without an employer diverting any portion of those wages to “benefits” the employer deems worthy. Individuals ought indeed be able to purchase their own medical insurance in a manner appropriate to their own allocation of priorities.

             1. You’ll love this part – you know those insurance exchanges that are part of the health care reform legislation? Remember those? Those will basically allow exactly what you speak of. Pooled risk and lower premiums as a result. Private insurers still get to participate.

                Unfortunately, the legislation was watered down so that only those who don’t have insurance through their employers can participate. Shame…

                1. Jason, how can you confuse “personal responsibility” with “pooled resources”? Given that a considerable portion of said “pooling” will be taken up by bureaucrats, how much do you think will actually be left to run the program? (HINT: Have you looked at what’s going on in US Postal Service? **Any** government-run buraucracy?)

                   There is no way that somebody won’t get a lot more of their resources “pooled” than another person; and I guarant-darn-tee you that having payments made according to the amount put *in* isn’t part of the deal. In other words, another way to redistribute what the workers make to the non-workers. No thanks. You want to do that with a bunch of friends, feel free. You start using the force of government (the IRS, for pete’s sake!) to force other folks into your ‘pool’, and it’s very liable to be the straw that broke the back of the economy.

                2. Except, of course, that government bureaucrats are determining what thos policies offered through the exchanges must include. The consumer once again has scant control over the coverage. Gets us back to personal responsibility and other icky stuff.

71. No employers are forced to pay for birth control, the f*cking insurance companies are. How can you be a part of this “debate”, put up a lengthy screed on your shiatty blog and not even have all the facts?

    1. Who in the hell do you think pays for the coverage? Employers. If insurance companies are forced to put out more money, they raise their premiums. That means more money out of the employers’ pockets. Guess how that is passed on. Perhaps it is you who should make sure you have all the facts. Or do you only demand that standard of those who don’t agree with you?

       1. Employers are basically paying for the coverage on behalf of their workers – it’s part of the employees’ total compensation, and essentially takes the place of a rise in pay.

          Also recall that In the vast majority of cases, the employee is ALSO paying part of the premium.

          So…who gets to decide what’s covered? The employer, who’s not affected in any way by the coverage provided? The employee who’s paying at least some of the premium AND has to live with the coverage? Or the insurance provider?

          Employers have too much control over coverage as it is, seeing as how they’re the ones who choose the provider in most cases. How about we give the covered people a say, hmm? If the insurer and insureds can come to an agreement on what’s to be covered, the employer should stay the hell out of it.

          1. Jason, have you ever worked trying to find coverage for a large — or even a small — company? It’s not easy. Employers have to balance the cost of coverage–not only to them but also to their employees–with what will be covered. They have employees with high risk health conditions that have to be taken into account. They have not only medical but dental and eye coverage to consider. Believe it or not, but most employers are concerned about their employees and want to get them the best possible coverage that all parties involved can afford. Is it perfect? Hell no. But to try to find coverage that employees all agree on and can afford– that won’t happen. Herding cats would be easier.

             But let’s say you have a company that lets the employees have a say (and guess what. Lots of companies already do this) in determining not only who the insurance carrier will be but what coverage will include. What do you do when the majority of these employees decide they don’t want insurance covering psychiatric treatment or don’t want to pay for long term medical care? But let’s look at just prescription coverage. What if they decide they want coverage that only includes generics? What do you do if your doctor prescribes a non-generic version? (and yes, there are reasons for this to happen)

             What gets me is those of you who argue that contraception should be covered seem to think insurance is a right. Or, perhaps it is that you think birth control is a right. You are wrong on both counts. Now, I will say that if a doctor prescribes birth control pills to help treat a medical condition, that is a different matter, at least to me. But for the rest of it, nah. That’s one expense I have no problem paying for myself. Why? Because I choose to use it instead of other methods of contraception.

          2. So why not let everybody have a Health Savings Plan that they put money into, before taxes, and can use for whatever health needs they wish? No insurance — you need to see the doctor, you pay for the visit. You need to purchase meds, you pay for them (WalMart does some great stuff when it comes to this).

             You don’t understand how insurance companies operate, much less any other business.

       2. Waste of typing effort, Amanda.

          draa is a leftoid. For leftoid purposes, insurance companies are “rich” — and what they mean by “rich” is that they have lots of money, and it didn’t come from anywhere; it just materialized. It has no source or origin, and didn’t require any effort or measures; in fact, nothing you can actually do will “make” money. It either turns up or it doesn’t, and if it does, the person who benefits is “rich”.

          The “rich” are thus obligated to share their good fortune with everybody else. If they don’t, it authorizes the Good People to go beat them up and take away everything but the “fair share”. After all, nothing “the rich” did makes it “fair” to keep any of it — they simply happened to be close by when the money appeared out of thin air. You cannot convince them otherwise. Trying uses up your resources and annoys them to no result.

          Regards,
          Ric

          1. Rik, I know. Funny how they only come out when their sacred cows are exposed, isn’t it? How many of these posters would be here if Sarah had instead attacked the conservatives for waging their “war on women”?

          2. Insurance companies actually WANT to cover birth control because it’s cheaper for them than paying for pregnanc, delivery, and child rearing.

             1. Since when did they start paying for child rearing? You and I aren’t going to agree on this because you seem to feel there is some fundamental right to have insurance pay for birth control and you don’t care who foots the bill. I have no problem with insurance paying for it, so long as it isn’t mandated by the government that they do so. As I have said, my reasoning for this is because there are employers who have fundamental religious objections to birth control. There is a point where the individual has to take responsibility for his or her actions. In this case, the employee has the responsibility for choosing to work for an employer that has a religious objection to birth control AND that same employee has the responsibility for choosing what form of birth control she (or he) wants. It is not the responsibility of the employer to supply an insurance plan that will pay for it if said employer is fundamentally opposed to it on religious grounds..

                1. “Since when did they start paying for child rearing?”

                   When insurance companies covered newborn care, doctor visits, vaccines, antibiotics, formula? Come on, don’t be dense.

                   1. You are the one being dense…you want to be literal when it suits you and then you get upset when you are called on it. I’m holding you to the same standard you and others seem to want to hold those of us who don’t agree with you. You said insurance companies pay for child rearing. That is more than doctor visits, antibiotics, etc. Most insurance companies, btw, don’t pay for formula unless it is a special formula available only by prescription. Child rearing including food, home, education, clothing, and so much more. So don’t be dense and move on. You’ve made your point. I’ve already said we aren’t going to agree on this, especially since you seem to believe birth control is a right to be enforced by the government.

                      I don’t know, maybe I’d take you and so many others who do these drive-by posts to stir the pot more seriously if you didn’t hide behind aliases. Most of us who have posted in support of what Sarah has said, or at least in support of her right to express her opinions whether we agree or not, are either regular followers of the blog or we have at least a link to email, fb, our own blogs or websites. But not most of your drive-byers. Why is that, I wonder.

             2. Insurance companies also want to cover euthanasia because its cheaper than in-home care, cancer treatment, post stroke therapy, dementia care …

                The issue is not what insurance companies WANT to pay for, the issue is what purchasers of insurance want paid for.

          3. Agreed.

             You should never try and teach a pig to sing. It only annoys the pig, and gets you covered with mud in the attempt.

          4. The primary investors in insurance companies are pensions, supporting widows and orphans. Anybody attacking insurance company profits is essentially demanding lower dividend payments to widows and orphans; they want widows and orphans to starve. Such people MUST answer WHY DO THEY HATE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS?

    2. He who resorts to profanity has already lost the argument.

       Plus it really makes you look like a moron.

72. The notion that “forcing a man to pay for a service he doesn’t want ‘for his own good’ is the greatest tyranny” is just as overstated as the “war on women” — it seems a bit odd that you’d express the former in a post where you condemn the latter.

73. I’m sorry, but I support having birth control covered by insurance just as much as any other prescription medication. I’ve never needed to use it, but one sister is on it because a second pregnancy would kill her, and my other sister had a complete hysterectomy (that’s removal of uterus and both ovaries) because of cysts and fibrous tumors that would have been controlled by birth control. She now requires hormone replacement therapy, which is covered by her insurance but is a great deal more expensive to the insurer than her birth control would have been. This does not include the costs of her surgery and resultant hospital stay, which were also covered. This is illogical and unnecessary. Last I read, the Catholic Church was exempt from covering birth control to employees of their church. However, when they have secular businesses, they must abide by the secular ruling. Freedom of religion applies to the employees as well, folks. If I have a prescription for birth control and my religion allows me to take it, then I should have as much right to have it covered by the insurance I pay for as I do my antibiotics or my migraine prescription.

    1. With all sympathy for your various family members’ health, how much do condoms cost, really? It sounds like all the actual health threats were covered, and I agree your antibiotics and migraine prescriptions are absolutely necessary. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only argument that seems to remain is “I don’t like condoms.” I don’t either… I also don’t like to exercise but it’s necessary to my health and it’s the most cost-effective means of maintaining it. And nobody but me has to pay for it. If the argument is “it’s not fair that I should have to use condoms,” is it really more fair that someone else should have to pay for your choice not to?

       1. The pill is a more effective birth control method than condoms.

          1. Aside from embolisms, STDs, and the risks of missing a dose — or failing to take it at the right time of day.

             Further, most of the studies underlying this claim commingle 30-something suburban moms and teener walk-of-slut champions (not that there’s anything wrong with that, but for statistical purposes they have remarkably different risk factors.)

             With a condom the guy KNOWS some form of birth control was employed. Of course, women have been known to stick pins through condoms, which can somewhat impair their effectiveness.

             1. At least one man has, as well. He was convicted of sexual assault, based on her lack of informed consent.

                I wonder how many women are technically guilty of that, considering “forgetting to take your pills” is a lot harder to get caught at than sabotaging condoms, and one poll showed 42% of women said they’d lie about birth control to get pregnant, regardless of their partner’s wishes. (83% admitted to having told huge, life-changing lies to their partners, too, which is…scary.)

    2. That’s as ridiculous as saying Jewish restaurants should be forced to serve bacon because my religion allows it.

    3. Excuse. When ‘birth control’ is taken for some reason other than to prevent conception, such as the regulation of highly erratic and/or severe periods, or for the control of cysts and fibroids, the Catholic Church does not disapprove, and many of its institutions do provide such coverage.

74. Well, I don’t have much to say, just this short listing of facts take it any way you like.
    I cannot give numbers because I don’t know them, this is from what I have seen in my village and heard about from friends about what took place in their village and also what I see on the News.

    1. In my country everyday women are beaten and abused, by men, especially when that woman has no family to go to.

    2. I divorce cases most of the time women are given full custody of the kids especially if she is a stay at home mothers, the ex husband know has to pay maintenance for both the wife and the kids. He only stops paying maintenance for the wife if she remarries.

    3. A large amount of women in my country for the past few months have been receiving severe beatings not only with hands, but also with cutlasses which has left a lot of the needing extensive hospitalization.

    4. if it is a case where the man is being beaten by the woman, he is reluctant to go to the police or to tell anyone about it, because he would more than likely be laughed at. Which I have seen happen.

    5. In my village in some of the homes the women are the sole providers, while in others the women works for the most money, while in others the women are stay at home mothers.

    6. In my village women who are working are still expected to do all of the house work and take care of the children even if their spouse is not working, they are most of the time only given a reprieve from chores if they are sick, or if they have children who are in their teens, mostly their girl children.

    7. Also in my village boys are treated very differently from girls, boys are taken to their family farms and are taught to help their fathers or grandfathers on the farm, or allowed to lazy around all day, while girls are taught to do house work. Boys are also given more freedom than girls, they can play and hangout on the block, while the girls are busy doing house work.

    8. what determines what they do with the rest of their lives is how they perform in school.

    1. Ms. Williams,

       I don’t know which country you are from…

       …but in the US, UK, and Canada, all of the above happen to men at the hands of women all the time.

       40% of domestic violence is by women onto men.

       Men can be jailed for ‘failing to make their wife sufficiently happy’.

       Men can be jailed if, 30 days later, the woman regrets the consensual sex they had.

       Men can be financially ruined and have their children taken away from them because their wife found them ‘boring’.

       The US/UK/Canada are extremely anti-male societies. Observe this while you can, as no society can last in such a state for more than a brief period.

75. You can’t complain that the phrase “war on women” is hyperbole after just advancing the notion that “forcing a man to pay for a service he doesn’t want ‘for his own good’ is the greatest tyranny” without a complete lack of self awareness.

    1. Aha! Another of those taking marching orders from a site that said, “go over there and say this..”! Let’s have some fun. Shout “KOS SPAM” after each of the posts with this that we see. Because this was a lead-in to the blog; which, had you actually read it, you would have realized. Love them little mindless minions, showing their ignorance and near-illiteracy across the blogesphere!

76. In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: “Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.”

77. Oh, my goodness, Sarah, did you hit it out of the park with THIS one! Your “selling you the rope” line and its follow-up just made Quote of the Day on my blog. It’s great to see women getting up in arms about the misconceptions being piled on them by the Left. Great stuff.

78. I would like to say that I’m a feminist, but the word has been so mangled from its original meaning that I can’t without being associated with the crazies (just like no one can say they’re an atheist without everyone assuming they’re a radical liberal sheep, and no one can say they’re a conservative without being called a backwoods redneck). But I am a feminist. I support women’s rights.

    However, by “rights” I mean /rights/, not privileges. Birth control is not a right. Buying pills is not a requirement for health for the majority of women (and in the cases that it is, like for women with PCOS, employers would have to pay for it regardless). It’s often prescribed for purely cosmetic reasons or convenience, to clear the skin or make menstruation more regular. No one would expect employers pay for facial masks and Midol, or the humble drugstore condom, but when it comes in pill form it’s /medicine/. It’s a /right/.

    Being a woman does suck sometimes. When I IM or call customer service, I get treated like I have the IQ of a toddler; my SO gets detailed technical information that actually helps. When I worked in an IT department, my older male colleagues would pat me on the head and call me “good girl,” and then ask me if I /really/ understood what they were talking about, while treating the college boys with half my skills and experience as equals.

    On the other hand, being a man can suck just as much. When I was in middle school, I won a spot at a free two-week camp for girls interested in science. Did a similar program exist for boys? Of course not. They already had a leg up just for being male. Being male makes you immune to domestic violence, too. I know a man who was raped as a teenager (by a woman), and now he gets to walk past posters that scream, “If she’s drunk, it’s rape!” If he ever expresses doubt that a woman is telling the absolute truth about being raped by such-and-such athlete/politician/professor, he’s verbally lynched instantly because he “could never understand her pain.”

    This is where I think the word “feminist” fails–for making it look like we’re championing one sex over the other, instead of campaigning for equality. Feminists were never meant to warp society to the point that a man’s career would be over for even hinting that male and female brains are structured differently. This “War on Women” bit is just nonsense. I really, really hate what the “feminist” trend has become in the last couple of decades, because it spoils everything it had accomplished in good faith before we became little girls crying for our pills.

79. Excuse me, move over, make room on this hill. I rant.

    I didn’t do well with the Feminism du jour of my youth. I asked questions, like, if it had been impossible for women to go to medical school until my generation, how did my great aunt, the doctor, manage it? (In Alabama, no less.) I believe that my mother was the first woman in the family to fail to gain a post high school degree in quite some time.

    To repeat myself, with variation, I didn’t think well of the Feminism of my youth. It has now gone off the deep end. I think that neither the women nor men have profited by it. No less the children.

    The daughter has avoided much of it, because she is such a stubbornly independent thinker and a science nerd, and this largely put her outside their influence. Feminists seem to be avoiding the hard science, as the subjects tend not to fit into their mind set. They may scream that the subjects are closed to women, but they certainly are not. They are closed to people who don’t deal well with the idea that there are some facts and principles that are not malleable.

    Such as the differences between men and women being more than a few bits and hormones — but that makes neither superior or inferior — except in some applications. If these differences are unnecessary or deleterious to the species, then why do they remain? I believe it would be more productive to determine how to best utilize all talents wherever they may fall. (People have a right to waste their talents, if they so chose. That is their business.)

    Condoms are handed out free in many Middle, High Schools, college and state run clinics to both male and female. They are paid for by tax dollars. This began more than two decades ago. I have no end of problem with the argument that affordable birth control is not available.

    Of course there are some problems with this method of distribution. Dr. Joycelyn Elders, when director of the Arkansas Department of Health, had apparently decided not to recall faulty condoms that were being distributed by the state. The justification given: a recall would destroy the public’s trust in condoms, and therefore people, who it was felt needed to be using them, might stop using them. (And we want the government to take over our health care?)

    As to various false accusations — they are a crime. What happened at Duke which resulted in District Attorney Mike Nifong being disbarred is an extreme case. The number of people who weighed in before all the facts were on the table and the rapidity with which the whole thing metastasized was amazing. There is no court that can give the unjustly accused back their reputation. As we become aware of the problem of false accusations it tends to fosters an atmosphere where it is difficult to give credence to accusations of any crime seriously. (Heard the cry “wolf” anyone?) And all this belittles the victims of real crime.

    1. “Condoms are handed out free in many Middle, High Schools, college and state run clinics to both male and female. They are paid for by tax dollars. This began more than two decades ago. I have no end of problem with the argument that affordable birth control is not available. ”

       What are your thoughts regarding Republicans trying to shut down Planned Parenthood, reducing affortable birth control options?

       1. What are your thoughts regarding Republicans trying to shut down Planned Parenthood, reducing affortable birth control options?

          Mine.

       2. “Republicans trying to shut down Planned Parenthood”
          : “Don’t want to pay for because the US ran out of money a long time ago” is NOT the same thing as “”trying to shut down”. Really. I know, I’m just a mathematician from a land-grant university, but I’m somewhat familiar with the English language

       3. What are your thoughts on Margaret Sanger’s (found of Planned Parenthood) often-repeated views on making sure that “negroes” or “colored” were kept from reproducing? Where are most of the Planned Parenthood offices?

       4. Like Tom Lehrer’s “Old Dope Peddler” I think Planned Parenthood is “doing well by doing good,” making a tidy profit off of human misery. Apparently they’re making less profit than they’d like:

          … Then I remembered all the waste, abuse and potential fraud associated with Planned Parenthood. Maybe that’s what Richards was talking about when she called this a difficult year!

          For example, a report the Alliance Defense Fund recently released in conjunction with the Susan B. Anthony List highlights federal and state audits that identify some of the waste, abuse and potential fraud committed by Planned Parenthood — to the tune of nearly $100 million taxpayer dollars.

          The details of the audits are startling, inasmuch as they show Planned Parenthood’s misuse of the massive amounts of taxpayer money that’s been funneled to state family planning programs and Planned Parenthood affiliates.

          They include 10 state audits revealing waste and abuse totaling nearly $8 million, and 38 federal audits that uncovered $88-99 million of waste and abuse in “family planning” programs.

          Two of these audits, in New York and New Jersey, specifically identified Planned Parenthood, and only Planned Parenthood, as a source of overbilling in the family planning programs; the combined waste in these two audits alone was more than $1.5 million.

          But it gets worse. Now, a newly unsealed ADF lawsuit against one of Planned Parenthood’s Texas affiliates has revealed that Planned Parenthood submitted “repeated false, fraudulent, and ineligible claims for Medicaid reimbursements” through the Texas Women’s Health Program. The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood received more than $5.7 million from these false claims.
          [ http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/03/billion-dollars-isnt-enough-planned-parenthood/384186 ]

          Emphasis added. Google ADF & Planned Parenthood & Texas for details.

80. You may ride beside me into battle (rhetorical or otherwise) at any time, as I would ride beside you into battle as well.

    Your lance strikes true, your heart is just, you do the realm great honor.

81. Sounds like Sarah Hoyt is the one who needs to leave the country since Sarah Hoyt seems to prefer how she’d be treated elsewhere.

    The rest of us are fighting for a society, honey.

82. You are so misguided, sister. So many of us are standing up to say that it is time that the Sacred Feminine is honored, that autonomy is a birthright, and that women deserve to be treated with respect.

    Join us! wearewomenmarch.net

83. I’m staying out of the whole reproduction thingy. But Americans in general are utterly, abysmally clueless what is going on in the rest of the world. America is oppressive? Move to Myanmar if you want oppressive. Corrupt? Go to any of the -stans or Zimbabwe if you want corrupt. No due process? Try North Korea. Male dominated and mysoginistic? Try Saudi Arabia. Cruel to illegal immigrants? Check out how Mexico deals with illegals from further south. They act like they have a right to have the Universe be Disney World.

    1. Isn’t America supposed to be the BEST country in the world? Why are you comparing it to third world countries?

    2. The fact that people are treated horribly elsewhere doesn’t ameliorate the bad behavior of people here.

       1. Agreed, two wrongs do not make a right. But I don’t think that is the question. Does wanting something make it a right?

          Does inconvenient expense rise to wholesale suppression? Is asking someone to purchase widely available goods for themselves equivalent to denial of said good? I do not believe that to require someone to pay for goods and services — such as their own birth control — is a denial of rights. Nor is the same as denying women access to doctors and medical care, which for all intents and purposes they were under the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    3. Indeed. Let us never forget all those who fought and died so that America could be marginally better than the most barbaric hellholes on Earth. As our anthem says, “At least we’re not Myanmar! (WE’RE NOT MYANMAR!)”

84. I will make this simple since it seems a bit above your head.

    Employers should not have the right to decide what kind of medical care you do or do not receive. If you are paying for employer provided health insurance, even if they pay part of the premium, they should not have the ability to pick and choose which services you can receive.

    if you work for a company owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses they should not be able to make an exception about blood transfusions any more than a company owned by Catholics should be able to make an exception for birth control.

    I also noticed that the comments seem to be very supportive. I’m assuming that you’re deleting opposing viewpoints since I came here from Fark.com which has a 200+ thread on this blog and yet, it seems, not one of the commentors have made a way over her. So a private note for you, you are particularly loathsome because you have chosen to hold a party line rather than stand up for your gender. As a conservative woman I understand that if we do not change our party these issues that seem to have come out of nowhere from 1940 will alienate the majority of voting age women. I’d hate to see the death of the republican party but they are killing it with these issues.

    One last thing, “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” Robert Heinlein

    1. Gee, thanks sooooo much for explaining it to all us little peons. It is so difficult to understand that when someone goes to work for a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION that we get to tell them which of their religious beliefs we get to violate and they get to pay for.

       As for Sarah not approving negative comments,I suggest you actually read the comments. There are those that agree with her, those that don’t and those that fall in-between. Just because another site has comments, doesn’t mean they have all come over here, even if they say they did.

       As for not standing up for her gender, get over yourself. Just because Sarah doesn’t agree with everything you do doesn’t mean she doesn’t stand up for women. She does. That’s something you’d know if you were a follower of her blog or had read any of her books. But no, you’d rather come flying by to post your condescending drivel and then you’ll fly back, patting yourself on the back for having taken a stand to protect all women.

       And, btw, your quote really does apply to the current administration.

       1. I stand up for PEOPLE. I don’t really care if they have vaginas. People who think that because I was born with a vagina and they were born with vaginas I HAVE to be on their side, are thinking with said vagina which is an organ NOT suited to the task.

          1. Oh. My. G-d. I love that line.

    2. So a private note for you, you are particularly loathsome because you have chosen to hold a party line rather than stand up for your gender.

       I have concluded that, as I recognize most of the posters here, that they have been followers of the blog, and have not just dropped in for this particular are number. I, myself, an relatively new, having been following only for a couple of months. Still, I think that the last thing that could be truly be said of Sarah Hoyt is that she ‘tows a party line.’

       I find the accusation of ‘not supporting your gender,’ particularly loathsome.

    3. you are particularly loathsome because you have chosen to hold a party line rather than stand up for your gender.

       ROTFLMAO oh gawd, excuse me while I mop up this puddle in which I find myself sitting. Sarah: you chose the WRONG PARTY line! You can only achieve full humanity by choosing the CORRECT party line. guffaw giggle snort

       1. RES — you are a BAD man. I like you a lot.

          I’m totally and completely offended by their intimation that my thoughts have something to do with that part of my anatomy. And THAT’s their best argument.

          Oh, incidentally, while I usually have a policy of letting every comment too, people with unlikely handles just repeating each other in this post will not be approved. Yes, yes, I am a gender traitor and capable of incredible thought-crime. Good Lord, is that the best you can bring? The middle school class was better. I feel like a mammal faced with a bunch of blind and deaf baby dinosaurs. I hope they’re being paid by the click, otherwise you’d think that “broad accusation & name calling” would get as boring to write as they are to read.

          1. Between the humans-are-locusts crowd and the slavers, the thread’s getting pretty repetitive.

             For the humans-are-locusts crowd (The earth is being overrun by people and we’re running out of everything. Worldwide famine by 1989!) – the 1980’s called and wants to know if the worldwide famine and collapse of civilization happened yet.

             As o slavers, I’m speaking of the entitled prima donnas. I’m perfectly willing to debate whether or not it’s the governments business to defend us, or provide health care, provide food for the poor (and on what scale) or whether it is effective or ineffective to do so. The second you tell me it is a god/goddess/ghu/spaghetti monster/godless given RIGHT to have someone provide you with [free | subsidized] [condoms | vaccines | food] – for someone to work to work to provide you something without recompense (how the heck else do you think it’ll be cheaper to get contraceptives? someone else is paying for it!), I’m looking for the bullwhip in your hand and wondering when you expect me to call you “Massah”.

          2. For the record, the “you” I’m referring to as slavers and entitlement princesses does not include you Sarah – otherwise they wouldn’t be here to try and swarm you under like a horde of lemmings.

             (just realized that since this was a reply to your comment, it could be misconstrued)

             1. X “a horde of lemmings”? ROFL…Apt description. Very apt. One I’ve used myself as well as sheep, sheeple and willfully ignorant.

85. Honey, in the other parts of the world you describe women are beaten for having a blog. By your arguments, you should take that as a warning and get back in the kitchen.

    1. You know, Sugar Pie, if you’d actually *read* this one, and not just jumped in because somebody pointed you to a weblink and said, “kill”, you might have figured out that this is *exactly* what Sarah was saying. Or is reading comprehension of anything past simple, one line commands beyond your intellectual capability. And, Fluffy, you just ain’t in your league.

    2. Ooh, ooh – hate speech hate SPEECH HATE SPEECH THREAT WARNING DANGER WILL ROBINS…

       Consider the possibility Ms Hoyt was asking for a little perspective … oh, wait – you’ve demonstrated no idea of what perspective actually is.

    3. In other parts of the world MEN are beaten for having a blog and not espousing the regime’s authorized opinions. So by your argument everybody should sit down, shut up and serve their alien overlord masters.

    4. Honey?

       Boy that’s a rather misogynistic and condescending way to refer to a woman! You better be careful, you’re liable to end up in a reeducation cam… I mean sensitivity training.

       1. It’s okay Pat, because I’m about to call this person of vaginitude a prize moron, which is worse.

          CT, CONSIDER READING UP ON NATURAL VERSUS other “rights.” I believe in natural rights, as did our founders, btw. Those are the rights that come with no one interfering with you. You don’t REQUIRE help from anyone to secure them, merely to be left alone. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which roughly includes being secure in your person and possessions. This means no one (unless it’s the tax man. Eh.) has the right to come and take your stuff, no one has the right to rape you or beat you, etc. OTOH you don’t have the right to take other people’s stuff, including their labor or their money. Demanding that people pay for your contraception (AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH — someone always pays) is NOT a natural right. It involves the labor and materials that go into manufacturing it, so, darling chil’ you are out of luck.
          BTW since you seem to have issues with this concept, the USA is NOT a nation of blood or territory (though we have territory.) It is a nation of belief. You abolish the constitution, you abolish the nation. Think carefully before doing it. And, well, if you really feel like you want those non-natural rights and you hate our constitution, consider going to Cuba. Tropical weather. They get all sorts of rights in their constitution. And as the first mor– er… refuge to their shores you’ll be a show-piece and are actually likely to get some of those. If there are no shortages — ah — and if someone more “important” than you doesn’t need them at the time.

86. Good call on the “War on…” crap. This all started with Nixon’s “War on Drugs” lie and then Bill O’Reilly ramped it up with this supposed “War on Christmas” crapola. Glad to see you calling the spade a spade and a war a war. Any misuse of “War on…” is a deliberate lie and attempt to mis-lead the less thoughtful (but still voting) members of our Republic.

    1. While anyone remembers that this is a Republic.

       1. Excuse me, but you forgot *Johnson’s* “War on Poverty” that started this whole entitlement slide into bankruptcy. But, shoot, why stop a good anti-Republican/Conservative rant with facts, eh?

          This isn’t about *politics* — it’s about *individualism* and the rights *and resposibilities* of functioning adults.

          1. Please note, my response was to REV’s statement.

             The Constitution sets up a democratic republic, not a democracy. Used to be we were taught this in schools. It is said that Ben Franklin, on being asked after the Constitutional convention what form of government had we been given, replied, ‘A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.’

             As to Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty,’ I certainly have not forgotten it.

             1. Sorry, I thought I *was* replying to Rev’s statement. I guess I clicked the wrong reply. My apologies for confusing people, and especially to you for seeming to reply to something you had said.

                1. Thank you. No problem.

87. Pingback: War On Men? « A Conservative Wanderer

88. As the mother of four young men, I applaud you.

89. I realize you don’t like to talk about politics, but as a sf writer, you really have to in this day and age. With far leftists like David Brin actively supporting censorship*, sf writers who are on the political right, i.e., the freedom side, need to speak out. Eric Raymond’s site Armed and Dangerous covered Brin’s lies regarding Heinlein and guns; you can google it.

    *Yes, I know he supports censorship of Fox News, not of science fiction writers. But do you honestly believe he isn’t pressuring publishers to reject right-leaning manuscripts?

    1. I don’t support ANY censorship, and you’re absolutely right that a black list exists. In defense of the people perpetrating it, though, they don’t THINK it’s a black list. Instead they think people are “difficult” or “irrational.” The rejections on Darkship Thieves over thirteen years accused my future history of being “irrational”.

       My not wanting to talk about politics is articulated in the post today. It’s not so much a fear of what will happen to my career — after yesterday’s post, I assume it’s dead, except for Baen and indie efforts, but then again I’m counting on Indie efforts to support me, so blah. It’s more that I think I can be more effective if I don’t become a slogan. And also, I genuinely have friends on both sides and there’s no point pissing them off without illuminating the subject. They really DO exhibit “cult behavior.”

    2. David Brin is a far leftist? Libertarian David Brin? Who beats a drum about needing to keep the powerful accountable and under scrutiny, and said right after 9/11 that we didn’t need a security crackdown, as ordinary Americans had proved they would take down terrorists themselves if need be?

       Yes, he thinks taxation can be justified and that government can sometimes be useful, but that’s not a mark of the far left.

90. And the same is true for the “War on Catholics”?

91. Well done. I am sharing your post throughout my network.

92. Congrats, you just sold me some books–keep it up.

93. I found this particular article to be somewhat shocking, not to mention the responding comments. Personally I do believe that there is a certain amount of unfairness in the system in regards to children and child support. Having said that however, the article addresses the issue of birth control as if it were only women who want it. This is not true; both men AND women would gain access to birth control, the only difference being that condoms are much easier and cheaper to purchase than any type of female birth control. So if you want to make the argument that women are demanding an unreasonable thing in wanting birth control, perhaps we should look at the difficulties in obtaining female birth control.

    As for women having preferential treatment by the law, there is no denying that in some ways this is true. However, women make less then men for the same jobs/pay period (the only exception I can think of to this being women in the adult films industry), They are treated worse in the workplace, with a study done by the University of Michigan last year showing almost 50% of women in the United States armed forces having received some form of sexual harassment as oppose to only 20% of men. In many cases of rape, including date rape, women are told when they accuse their attacker that they were “asking for it” or “such a slut anyways.” According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest Nationaly Network, 1 out of every 6 women has been the victim of rape or attempted rape. 90% of rape victims are women. While the vast majority of rapists are male, only about 7% will every go to jail. So I’m really not sure how much “preferential” treatment women get from the law.

    In response to another one of the comments by Lori, “I am a woman and I want men to be men”, I would like to ask what exactly do you mean by men should be men? Do you mean in the mid 20th century when men were misogynistic and demeaning towards women because after all, “The chef [kenwood chef mixer] does everything but cook- that’s what wives are for!” Or perhaps during the early to mid 20th century when men were supposed to use a switch no thicker than their thumbs to beat their wives. Maybe we want to go further back, before women’s emancipation when only men had the right to vote because, guess what, men set it up like that. And if by saying men should be men you simply mean that they shouldn’t show their emotions, shouldn’t cry, should always be “strong” no matter what happens, then I feel sorry for your potential or actual male children. Because we have seen that it is psychologically unnatural for people to bottle up their emotions. It is actually possible to literally die from such a thing.

    Finally, time and again in the comments I see various repetitions of the notion that women shouldn’t demand that things change. That it is in fact becoming unfair to men (which I thought was not a good term to use according to the article cause life’s not fair) and that equality means equality for all, not just for women. Out of 100 members of the Senate, only 17 are women. And out of 438 members of the House, 362 are men and 76 are women. So if this were a “fair and equal” thing, than shouldn’t half the population get about half the representation? Isn’t that in fact what started this country? That American colonists felt underrepresented in the British parliament and demanded representation that would fight for them. Would you want a woman deciding whether you should have access to condoms or Viagra or Cialis or any number of male reproductive enhancers, protectors, etc? Should men be forced to get a colonoscopy at a certain age because it is accepted that it should be done to prevent cancer? No, just as women should not be forced to allow a doctor to insert a rather large device into her vagina in order to get an abortion. ESPECIALLY if the child she wishes to abort is the product of rape.

    So in conclusion, perhaps “war on women” is a bit of a strong term to describe the inequalities and injustices that the system (aka government, usually state but also federal) heap upon women. But I for one cannot think of a better term.

    1. Interesting seeing what quotes taken out of context people are latching onto from other blog sites. They come here, spew a line of tripe that proves, conclusively, they haven’t *read* this particular blog post, and leave feeling all warm and righteous. The total, unthinking, lock step “go here and respond to these three, disparate statements from a well thought out essay” is incredible to me. Just. Incredible. “Ms” Williams could (should!) be a poster child for the posters who don’t *read* what other people have pointed them at.

       It is pathetic. There was a time when people at least pretended to have read something, instead of this …. drivel.

       1. Ah, Lin, that would be too much work. It’s like all those saying what is included in a particular bill without actually reading it. Why should they when there’s plenty of folks willing to tell them what the bill says, whether it actually says it or not.

          1. Oh, there are just sooooo many examples of bad and misused statistics here that this fill a stats textbook. Most obvious and easily repudiated stat are the ones about Congressionial representation. The idea that some women in this country vote for their representatives on the basis of plumbing rather than intelligence and/or political philosophy, and that some women look at how Sarah Palin and her family has been treated and decide they have more productive places to employ their energies is apparently too alien for gender identity cultists to grasp. Which would explain their difficulties grappling with the theme of Ms Hoyt’s post.

    2. Wrong…[and I’ve made this point else where repeatedly not that anyone who disagrees with me wants to hear it] you CAN get birth control for CHEAPER than Condoms actually. A 3 month supply of GENERIC BC pills for $12-15 is available in MANY of the big chains and their pharmacies. Unless of course you fall into one of two categories, you’re allergic to the generics offered at your pharmacy or..you need a specific one for true MEDICAl HEALTH reasons. Hell you can get it for that online as well, but then you also have to account for the shipping charges in that case, which aren’t that bad. Nice try though.

       1. *facepalm*Sorry about that forgot to put Charles K’s name on that post. since he was the one I was responding to.

    3. At first I thought, ‘Where to start?’ Then I realized that most of what you have said does not, in fact, address this blog. The discussion may have been sparked by one political party accusing the other of a War On Women because the other party has members who have questioned whether or not, under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, it is appropriate to force a religious institution to pay for a service that it believes is tantamount to murder. But that is not what the blog was about.

       It addressed the effect of our society’s present view of The Male on boys. For example, we often medicate them in school, because they cannot sit quietly for hours like their female counterparts. Many schools, in the interest of increasing learning time have cut back on recess and gym. This makes it even more difficult for boys to sit quietly. (BTW: studies show that the reason teachers call on boys in more often than qirls in grade school was not a preference for boys, but as a means of addressing the generally shorter attention span of boys.) Boys and girls develop at different rates, and I am not just talking about secondary sex characteristics. Surprise, surprise.

       We are not treating boys as boys, and girls as girls. We need to be celebrating and nurturing (sorry) both. And we need to stop thinking of either group in monolithic types, because each group is made up of a bunch of individuals.

       (So, please don’t accuse me of wishing to put the daughter ‘back into the kitchen.’ Believe me, that is the last place she belongs. She, because of who she is, belongs in a science lab or translating some obscure scientific study on neural development from Japanese to English.)

       1. I’m ALSO completely at a loss, CACS, as to why these critters think that “having children” equals slavery. It seems like an odd concatenation. Some of the strongest, most self minded business women I grew up with had LARGE families. I have a “normal size” family for our time — two — and I got published when my youngest was three and the oldest seven, after sixteen years of concerted trying. In that time, I kept house, refinished most of our furniture, and made a lot of the stuff for the house, as well as cooking two meals a day from scratch. Would it have been easier/faster without that? Probably. Would it have been easier if I were a male? Well, let me see, my husband who sacrificed his dreams till my writing can pay for our living (well, he had a science degree. It’s easier to get a job with those. And I’m better at cooking and cleaning, though I didn’t learn either till after marriage. Also, I hate schedules) has only managed to publish a few short stories. Why? Well… 14 h days, plus the accounting for house and my business, plus some time with our sons, plus cleaning the kitchen which he does for me… it all adds up. Would it have been easier if I were a male who only exists in female imaginations and who can just start writing and get paid huge bucks for it? Sure it would. But this is not even a war on men. It’s a war on REALITY.

          1. But this is not even a war on men. It’s a war on REALITY.

             Golly gee willickers, ya think? Well, so do I.

             That is part of the problem. To think. It is a terrible inconvenient and disquieting habit at times. And not just to think at, but to think for oneself. To read widely, not just what confirms and comforts you, but what challenges. Then to go farther and even question yourself. You might come up with some independent ideas. You might change your mind — or not.

             And I am ever so irritated by those who insist that I cannot have thought, because I have not come to the same conclusion that they hold. Society has always made it easier for those who tow the line. In Japan they have a saying, The nail that sticks up gets hit.

             Sorry you are taking such hits. I told the spouse yesterday that I wanted to post: ‘I am Sparticus.’ Oops, no, sorry, make that, ‘I am Sarah Hoyt.’

             1. CASC
                Thank you. But don’t make too much of it. I am in fact just doing it for the same reason I unstop the sink when it backs up. I’m a grown up and it’s time it was done.

94. Brilliant – same as Girlwriteswhat on youtube – seems women are better at putting men’s case accross. Many thanks

95. “Or that… This is NOT kindergarten. LIFE is unfair. NATURE is unfair. ”

    Very true, but the problem is that in North America most people seem to be under the impression that life is intrinsically fair and if it isn’t then it’s because someone is behaving badly and needs to get punished.

    If the fact that life isn’t fair would be accepted by people then there would be saner laws and public discourse.

96. What do you or any of your side on this issue have to replace the present system in order to have a country like you want to have and a world that works with your solution? I agree that most wars are fought with directives from the top at the expense of the lives down the pecking order. I also believe that each country’s leaders thinks he is fighting only in self-defense.
    When Ghandi realized this, he refused to fight. Japan hit us in Hawaii only because they believed that if they did not get us first, we would get them.
    Then you have the Narcissists who dictate their countries, use their own people as pawns, and gather all the money into their personal barns. To make the world safe for Democracy, don’t we have to send our children in harm’s way in order to get this long range job done? And if notl how?

    1. This one wins the “non sequitar par excellence” award. WTF are you on about? Or did you accidentally do copy/paste to the wrong blog? Hello? Read before you hit ‘post comment’? Or is this something somebody else told you to post somewhere at random?

97. From one Sara to another Sarah, Thank You! You could not have said it better!!!

98. Hoyt for President

99. Hoyt for President

    1) She can have more influence and create more change through the eloquence of her reasoned writing.

    2) I would not wish this on Dan, or her two sons, no less the cats.

    3) Do you really dislike her so much as to put her in that thankless position?

    4) I want my reading. I have a RIGHT to my reading. I am entitled to my reading. Therefore she must continue to provide the public with more written material, as she has a richness of stories and that is unfair.

    1. Well CACS, Sarah’s not a natural born American so she can’t be President of the US so she’ll have to settle for being our favorite author. [Wink]

       1. I’m thinking SecEd

          1. Patrick…ohhh
             I can hear heads exploding at that one. if she were ever to take up that position, screams of asses as they leave skid marks out the door would be MOST satisfying.

          2. My name is CACS, and I am an recovering PTA officer, Parent Advocate and school board junkie.

             I am one of those who believes there the Federal Department of Education is a good place to reduce spending. It is not that I don’t believe that every children should not be taught to read, write, cypher, etc. I DO. I really do. (That is why I spent volunteer hours every week tutoring at risk kindergartners at my daughter’s school.) It is not that I believe that the Fed hasn’t done a very good job of it, which I do. (Testing indicates that there has been no real improvement in test scores since the creation of the department.) That, theoretically, could be fixed. It is simply not the Fed’s job.

             And I want her to have a life, and keep writing. Not because I have a RIGHT to it, I really don’t, but I would like it just the same.

100. I walked away from this so-called discussion hours ago because those opposing what Sarah said were simply saying the same thing over and over. Several even used the exact same phrasing on posts that came through within second of each other. But I’m back at Sarah’s request.

     Sarah is trying to finish edits on a novel so she can get it back to her publisher. Her general rule has been to approve any post that stayed on topic, wasn’t profanity laced and made at least some sense. However, it is becoming clear that at least some of the commenters are paid shills, earning for each click. So, if your comments don’t have something to do with the post, if they are merely restating what has already been said time and time again, the comments will not be approved or they will be deleted.

101. Ms Hoyt forgot a few other fronts in the war on Men. More males under the age of 18 commit suicide than young women but there are more programs at suicide prevention among women and girls. More males never finish high school than females, but at the national level the academic assistance programs are aimed almost exclusively at females. More males under 18 report being struck or assaulted by their date than do females under 18 (CDC survey) but antiviolence programs are aimed exclusively at preventing violence by males – and perpetuating the myth that domestic violence is exclusively a male problem.

     1. I couldn’t LIST all the things we’re doing to males. It’s pure evil. I’m the mother of two sons, and I watched what goes on in schools up close and personal. It’s sickening. We’re eating our seed corn. I agree with you.

102. Wonderful, and never give in Sarah, please. I also never give in and I’ve endure attacks, but I’m steadfast. What’s right is right.

     – As an aside, Charles K” – you fooled no one, Miss.

     Back to confronting every time, when something if very wrong. When I’m offended at work by jokes the 4 to 1 female to male staff love to tell of men being sexually harmed, I confront courteously and with a prayer for humanity. I haven’t seen, since about 1993, the oft bragged about female strengths (when compared to men), of empathy, intuition, understanding, sustainers of life, etc.

     I often visit bookstores after work, the business section. I’ve noticed much movement, shelves filling with success/business books geared specifically to women (guaranteed sale via exclusivity and the “gender war”), e.g. “The Art of War for Women” where it states in direct terms, women are, stronger, more patient, have more endurance, are more intelligence, have greater willpower and compassion, forget “Win-Win,” women are superior by their inherent (!) strengths” and so. (I laugh at the “inherent strengths” part because empathy is absent in those who don’t practice it, along with any intuition through feeling they could have had. Also, when society programs out/desensitizes male suffering, female empathy for males simply cannot develop naturally.

     One such business book’s author, Chin-Ning Chu, inserted a single sentence in the introduction to state not “antimen”(!) and “I love men” – while the rest of her book she writes in superiority terms rather than, “woman are can also be very strong physically as demonstrated in these examples…” It was a useless statement where she drew more battle lines – for her beliefs, for money, both, parts of each? As I read the constant rubbish that women are naturally X (something good) and men are naturally X (something despicable that we want to borrow and beat them with, or trick them with, or just do it the better woman’s way) was tiresome, until I pulled back to take the strategies to see a broader picture for men. There’s always a need for a good pep talk. Some women may need hyperbole and a low grade hatred to function. Yet, largely such a style of “empowerment” (I beginning to hate that word) are harmful, are they not? The nemeses are…all of the men that exist at work! They don’t belong. If women are vastly superior in office settings compared to men. as stated in nearly all the new business books, then come hiring time, who would not be reluctant to follow their programming and higher fewer of the “inferior males”?

     One cannot lift society by tilting 50% of it down. The see-saw can also go too fast and one side will crash (I have actual experience.)

     These numerous new books, by majority female authors, directed at the majority numbers of college graduates who are females, waging battle against the “terrible, insensitive, and inferior men” at work trying also to feed their families… These authors go past “empowerment” and into serious discussions of superiority. And this is true regardless of one sentence disclaimers to the contrary. Such disclaimers are incredibly rare, but ultimately I believe, disingenuous. Proof is the further reading of the author’s book(s).

     Feelings of superiority are an extremely dangerous area when it comes to victims. Victims who are considered inferior are not afforded the same protections, and are violated more often. Two of a millions cases, “The Raping of Nanking” and the Bosnian-Serb War – atrocities occurred due to feelings of superiority and that the other side “deserved” it. Is that the most common thing you hear for men who private parts are injured for any reason and the victims are mental mush for life (“He deserved it! Hahahahahaha!”).

     We’re on a slow atrocity path against males. When Don Imus was fired over racial remarks (deserved) and The View’s entire cast was not fired for yukking it up over a poor man’s penis being severed, along with comments stated such as, “the dog won’t want that nasty thing” – then men cannot respect an audience, a message, or a society of women that are willing to view them this way, with utter, abhorrent lack of compassion. Men can ONLY hate. Men who don’t want to hate anything much less a whole gender because who is good? Who would laugh with the audience if they were in the audience? Whose morals are so destroyed that a missing body part, if it’s a man’s sexual parts, equals mental trauma of any magnitude. (I say a leg or knee for rape – several important reasons for society).

     Women magnificently up in arms against is the only, only possible response that keeps men engaged in caring about women’s issues, because no issue matters as much to a man as believing women are worth building/transforming himself for (life’s sacrifices), and also nothing matter as much to him as the parts that make him male. There is no compromise. We see men (Jay Leno, etc.) that laugh have lost enormously trying to win women’s favor, and confused women. They’ve bought into, “Don’t so serious! As a woman I want to be taken seriously and not when I make intentionally painful jokes that keep men on edge and make me feel powerful where I can be cute and say ‘don’t worry; you worry too much’ to show you I care…”

103. To reiterate my earlier comment, posted at Sarah’s request, it doesn’t matter if you are supporting Sarah’s post or not, if you try to post a comment that doesn’t further the discussion, it won’t be approved. If you try to post a comment that simply reiterates what has already been said time and time again, it won’t be approved. If you lapse into a profanity filled rant, it won’t be approved. If you are being a general a**, you won’t be approved. If all you are doing is drive-by trolling without adding to the discussion, you won’t be approved. Name-calling isn’t going to be allowed. Nor will comments citing as “proof” of a stance links that are to sites with their own agendas. Misquoting proposed legislation won’t be allowed. Oh yeah, if you have already violated these rules and your comment has been spammed, nothing else will be approved until Sarah has time to look at the backlog and that won’t be happening today because she has edits to finish.

     In other words, if your comment is waiting for moderation or is already marked as spam, posting another comment accusing Sarah of not wanting to hear “the truth” or being afraid of “the truth” isn’t going to help your cause. Frankly, if she followed my advice, she’d turn off comments simply because the drive-bys have done their best to disrupt the discussion of the issue by those who are actually willing to discuss and not lapse into rhetoric and party-line dogma.

104. Here’s a very pointed question about this debate, if it is somehow beyond the nature of fairness for we the taxpayers to pay for a woman’s birth control – then why is right for us to pay for a man’s viagra?

     If we cannot bring ourselves to pay for a woman to regulate her cycle, treat chronic acne and delay having a child until she is fiscally able to care for one without becoming a burden on the welfare system we should not be financing the ability of those with ED to be able to have sex.

     Part of the argument made by Rush Limbaugh is that this forces us to pay for a woman’s sex life, yet we’ve been paying for the silver haired male to have a sex life for almost 20 years now. Legislating the way insurance handles contraception is a health issue for many and a choice issue for an even greater many. Viagra (already paid for by nearly all insurance carriers in America) is 100% choice driven.

     1. Here’s a very pointed answer: You’re conflating apples with oranges and calling them both kittens. And then you’re wailing because we won’t agree they should be petted.

        Let’s clarify things, shall we — THE PILL FOR MEDICAL ISSUES OTHER THAN CONTRACEPTION IS ALREADY UNIVERSALLY COVERED ELSEWHERE.

        SO IS VIAGRA FOR REASONS OTHER THAN SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION. (Though fixing it is a side effect as contraception is a side effect of using the pill for say hormone replacement.)

        Okay — did you follow along? SO FAR WE’RE EQUAL. Good, right?

        Viagra for sexual dysfunction is covered by some insurers. The Pill for contraception is covered by some insurers.

        So far we’re equal, right? Right? Right.

        Now the government wants to make it mandatory that RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS WHOSE RELIGION FORBIDS CONTRACEPTION OR FACILITATING OTHERS’ USE OF CONTRACEPTION AND/OR ABORTION to provide this free for all employees. (We won’t go into the “fix” which is kindergarten level accounting tricks and THINKS that money is some sort of grand illusion that comes from nowhere.)

        Religious employees say no way. And this is a war on women? No, madame, this is a war on sanity.

        So do religious employees cover viagra for non-medical purposes? I don’t care. (They probably don’t.) The important thing is that the government isn’t trying to force a church — say the Never Ending Vaginitude of the Holy Goddess — into providing Viagra for males against Holy Vaginitude’s beliefs. IF they were I’d stand with the sisters of holy vaginitude in telling the government to back off.

        The principle at stake is the right to worship and believe in the manner you think will earn you heaven or set you right with the Almighty. It’s enshrined in this thing called the Constitution.

        It might surprise you that the principle you’re applying “Why do they do this for men and not women?” is not enshrined in said constitution. It is in fact enshrined in Mrs. McGillicuddy’s rules for kindergarten classes. Adults understand that equality under the law sometimes leads to less than fairness. Trying to create fairness in results ONLY creates tyranny and death EVERY time. Let it go. Pony up the $10 a month for your contraceptives, or get another job. It’s a free country, regardless of your efforts otherwise.

        Life is unfair. Adults know that and live with it. Only infants want someone to take someone else’s cookies away because THEY can’t have sugar.

     2. There is a line in The Right Stuff, which I am sure I am going to mangle, ‘We are arguing pussy when what we need to be arguing is monkey.’ This blog is not about denying anyone birth control, although it was inspired by the reactions to recent political events surrounding that debate. I suggest you try reading all of the blog, it really is rather interesting.

        Oh, and I for one don’t think that it is proper to force the taxpayer to pay for viagra, either.

     3. A. This blog is about something more fundamental than the tempest in a teapot over contraceptives;

        B. The point isn’t that *taxpayers* pay for anything: The point is that the might of the Federal Government is being brought to bear on religious institutions (First Amendment!) to engage pay for something that, if not *medically* necessary, goes against a stated belief and is well-known to anyone who accepts employment from them. Note: It’s not just the Roman Catholics. I know of at least three separate and distinct Lutheran synods who are also fighting this. There are undoubtedly more denominations, also.

        C. See A. Nobody is stealing anybody’s lady parts. This is a smoke screen raised by the present administration to attempt to take focus away from horrendous unemployment, skyrocketing prices for everything from gasoline to food, and a budgetary defecit that will take at least a generation to pay off if the spending stopped within the hour.

     4. Unfortunately this is actually tangental to both main themes for this – the one that inspired it, and the “war against men”.

        Even by your admission, not every carrier has viagra on the policies, and even of those that do, I’m sure not all policies, especially the “generic only” ones, cover viagra.

        In short, there is a CHOICE. You CAN get viagra covered if you choose to pay for it. But you don’t HAVE to.

        If your employer is providing the health insurance, THEY can provide viagra on the coverage, or not. It’s their CHOICE.

        So, since even the catholic church will cover birth control meds for hormone regulation (actual health reasons), and it’s possible to get birth control pills AND condoms pretty cheap (or simply not have sex), AND no-one is forcing you, or anyone else to cover someone’s viagra prescription unless you choose to select a health plan or enroll in an employer health plan that covers it, and if you’re employed by the catholic church you get to spend the money you get on both necessities (rent, food) and luxuries (fancy purses or phones) or even contraceptives as YOU SO CHOOSE…

        … what precisely is the problem?

        1. sorry – meant to write “War against women as an excuse for the power grab being BS”

           1. Eh. I understood your meaning. I’d also already answered trying to make light. Of course, given the focus on “why do boys have cookies if we don’t” I expect this person won’t be able to think her way out of a wet paper bag with two hands and a seeing eye dog. So I expect more repetitions of “pointed questions.” (Why not blunt ones?) My guess is someone told her “Boys have viagra, but they don’t want us to have the pill, it’s unfair. Go yell.” And she did. Sigh. We have A LOT of work to do in this world, if there IS to be a world for our grandkids.

105. Pingback: Here there be troll-whackers « Amanda S. Green

106. Bravo Ms Hoyt!
     I am 58 years old. I was in the first class of women to attend a previously all male college. I drove a forklift by day while working my way through a night MBA program when men still greatly outnumbers women in such programs. When the men around me got out of line I corrected them without making a federal case of it. After that I earned a law degree, also while working full time.

     About 15 years later I listened as the career columnist for a major newspaper told a group of women professionals she had told her own son, a recent college graduate, the job discrimination he was facing was just payback for what white men had done to women and minorities. She wasn’t heavily applauded but she should have been booed off the stage!

     It seems during that period American women went from strong independent creatures to fragile victims of some white male hegemony. Horse hockey! The only time I have every been a victim it has been to my own wishful thinking and stupidity. . You want to talk about women victims, I’ll introduce you to clients who spent years working in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

107. Wow, I missed all the fun this weekend. I’m not going to plow through all the posts, but I wanted to add my support to you.

     I’ve been the only girl in the clubhouse since I was two. Never had any trouble. My best, closest friends have been women, but that’s because of the nature of women’s friendships. But as long as I was as competent as the guys, I was welcome. Yes, I’ve had friends who’ve met some resistence, but even they say that 99 % of their experiences breaking into the male domain – and back then, it was breaking in, not the ease of today – was positive, that the guys were supportive.

108. From the addendum:

     Apparently the seventies feminist fallacy about gender being infinitely moldable never stopped resonating with some people. But, it’s not, and girls will be girls and boys will be boys, otherwise all you end up with is truncated versions of both and a wrecked future.

     A friend once told me (so this is, admittedly, anecdotal) of a forward thinking mother who was raising her children gender neutral and weapon free. The boy used to fold his Barbie into a ninety degree angle and while holding on to the torso, pointed the feet and said, “Bang, bang.”

     1. My sister gave dolls AND trucks to her sons AND her daughters. The two girls put the dolls in the back of their trucks and went on a picnic. The boys lay their dolls in front of the trucks, ripped their heads off, and ran over the dolls with the trucks while alternating between “large truck” noises” and “pitiful, agonizing dolls-being-run-over” noises. They were later disappointed when the girls refused to let the boys’ dolls come to their Barbie party, though (it turned out that the party’s dress code required heads).

        1. ROFL. We didn’t buy toy buns for our firstborn. We didn’t have a TV. We didn’t watch movies. He didn’t have any little friends. (BTW, all this wasn’t on purpose, it just worked out this way.) My MIL sent him a wooden puzzle for xmas with the States. Robert ran around shooting everyone with the state of Florida and dropping down to avoid crossfire. Do I get it? No. But it was funnier than heck.

109. Pingback: Classical Values » Endless this “war”

110. “War is where your houses are burned, your children taken away into slavery, your goods looted, and you are dragged away in chains.”

     It’s also when your women are raped, because a government wants to make women fear them, just like the rape by instrumentation that some states have implemented. And if you don’t think that is to instill fear in women, you’re just ignoring the obvious.

     1. It is also rape when women are knowingly kept in ignorance of what they are doing to benefit a multi million dollar industry and the fact that it allows sex to flow freely to those men who are smart enough to ignore the consequences. There, have we extended the metaphor enough? In your rape by instrumentation, you have perhaps forgotten that an abortion entails putting instruments into a woman’s private and either injecting a burning saline solution, or a blade to dismember the fetus in uterus. A woman submitting to a procedure of that magnitude SHOULD know what she is destroying, even if she’s been convinced she doesn’t want to see it.
        In fact, a woman should be treated as an adult and not as a sort of retarded child who can be led to do this or that, ‘because it’s easier deary, don’t think about it.” Which is, of course, how you would rather treat women. And which is what set off my entire rant because the idiots bleating in unison about war on women fall into your hands.
        BUT none of that was a point of this post, as you well know. Unable to counter the post you’re bringing up anecdotal bullshit on STATE legislation to justify a “WAR” on the gender that’s favored. Let’s have a show of hands, how many men would submit to the equivalent of a transvaginal ultrasound to be allowed to be fathers to that “product of conception” in whose life they have no say? Or to be allowed to get out of paying child support for the child they never wanted? Or to have the sort of allowances made for them that schools make for girls? Or not to be treated like criminals because they’re men? Or because?
        You see, you have no cause. All you have are talking points and a never ending amount of bile and attempted guilt-slinging, which you then use to get power over men AND women. The fact that what you’re doing is destroying society, humanity and the millenia-long slog of civilization means nothing to you. The fact that it will end in starvation blood and death means nothing to you. You’ll have your power. Well then, continue repeating the same meaningless anecdotes and slogans which btw, have been endlessly repeated in this thread, and continue flogging your “victimhood sheep” Why don’t you. After all you’ve chosen to reign in hell.

111. So well articulated. I think I luv you

112. Dispatches from the battlefield:

     The Silent Sorority
     Some women have had it with their liberal-approved counterparts.
     By Lisa Fabrizio
     http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/21/the-silent-sorority

     Is There a War On Women?
     by Andrew Klavan
     http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/03/19/is-there-a-war-on-women/?singlepage=true

     Richard Gere: Pretty Woman a ‘silly romantic comedy’
     Richard Gere has described Pretty Woman, one of the most popular films of all time, as a “silly romantic comedy and the “least favourite” of his movies.
     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/9158072/Richard-Gere-Pretty-Woman-a-silly-romantic-comedy.html

     COMMENT: He has no problem with making prostitution glamourous, but draws the line at hedge fund managers

     ‘SexTrafficking.com’
     Enslaved girls for sale on Village Voice Media site
     By KIRSTEN POWERS
     http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/sextrafficking_com_A9mZpneScfSJIZQmvGIYOL

     COMMENT: The ultraliberal Voice??!!!! Imagine if this were the Washington Times, the howls of condemnation

     Mebbe we had better smack the horse again, I think I saw it flinch.

113. Sarah, I love women like you very much. That the New Left would turn women into my enemy would very much confound me for the rest of my days. While I battle in Afghanistan, I thank you and women like you very much for keeping the homefires burning for when I return:)

Comments are closed.